Perhaps you could replace

xsl:for-each group group-starting-with="*[@StyleName='DIVISION']"

with
xsl:variable name="next" select="*[1]/@StyleName"
xsl:for-each-group group-starting-with="*[@StyleName=$next]"

This also has the advantage that it's the same code at all levels.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Brand
> Sent: 07 August 2003 10:41
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  XSLT 2.0 & Grouping for-each-group - RESEND
> 
> 
> * Micheal Kay
> <snip>
> But I may have misunderstood the requirement. What do you 
> want to happen if there isn't a DIVISION item in the group? </snip>
> 
> * Mark Brand
> 
> Hi Michael
> 
> Thanks for the response, the incoming data will  follow the 
> hierachy below (Figure 1) and for this case the nested 
> for-each-group works well.  
> 
> But the only guarentee about the  data is the order.  It is 
> not  guarenteed that a particular level will be there. For 
> example, a SUB-DIVISION  level may be missing  as per (Figure 2).
> 
> The nested  for-each-group solution for the  SUB-DIVISION 
> level ignores the fact that there is no SUB-DIVISION entry in 
> the group and processes the group entries anyway.
> 
>  I thought I could get around this with a check on the 
> for-each-group to see if (for example) the SUB-DIVISION level 
> was in the current-group(), but that won't work because you 
> still need to process the for-each-group because of the down 
> level stuff.
> 
> Another issue is that, there are some other elements that are 
> not part of the hierachy  but can appear before or after any 
> of the hierachial elements. For example (Figure 3)  you may 
> have a <NOTE> after a <DIVISION>
> 
> <PART>
> 	<DIVISION>
> 		<NOTE/>
> 		<REGULATION>
> 			<NOTE/>
> 		</REGULATION>
> 	</DIVISION>
> </PART>
> 
> 
> (Figure 1)
> PART
> 	DIVISION
> 		SUBDIVISION
> 			REGULATION
> 				SUBREGULATION
> 					PARAGRAPH
> 						SUB-PARAGRAPH 
> 							
> SUB-SUB-PARAGRAPH
> 						
> 
> (Figure 2)
> PART
> 	DIVISION
> 			REGULATION
> 				SUBREGULATION
> 					PARAGRAPH
> 						SUB-PARAGRAPH 
> 							
> SUB-SUB-PARAGRAPH
> 
> 
> (Figure 3)
> 
> <PART>
> 	<DIVISION>
> 		<NOTE/>
> 		<REGULATION>
> 			<NOTE/>
> 		</REGULATION>
> 	</DIVISION>
> </PART>
> 
> 
> Thanks Mark Brand
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> >>* Mark Brand
> >>
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>I have further questions on the fragments posted earlier. I
> >>did try implementing both options 
> >>but had some questions ...
> >>
> >>Q1.
> >><snip>
> >><xsl:for-each-group select="current-group() except "." 
> >>	group-starting-with="*[@StyleName='DIVISION']">
> >></snip>
> >>
> >>With this line of code, i found that it would execute (enter
> >>the for-each-group
> >>loop) even if there wasn't a DIVISION item in the group. How 
> >>do I stop the loop being entered if the group-starting-with 
> >>entry is not in the list. I have tried an if statement after 
> >>the loop has been entered but it is too late then for my purposes.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >This reads to me like
> >
> ><xsl:if test="current-group()/*[@StyleName='DIVISION']">
> >  <xsl:for-each-group select="current-group() except "." 
> > 	group-starting-with="*[@StyleName='DIVISION']">
> >...
> ></xsl:if>
> >
> >But I may have misunderstood the requirement. What do you want to 
> >happen if there isn't a DIVISION item in the group?
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Q2.
> >><snip>
> >>  <Part Category="{@StyleName}">
> >>    <xsl:copy-of select="child::node()"/>
> >>    <xsl:for-each-group select="current-group() except ."
> >>       group-starting-with="*[@StyleName=f:child(@StyleName)]">
> >>      <xsl:apply-templates select="."/>
> >></snip>
> >>
> >>With this piece of code from the second option where would
> >>you put the closing tags, 
> >>where-ever i put them they would all output after everything 
> >>else instead of in a nested fashion.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >Clearly the XSLT must be well-formed XML, so the closing 
> tags have to 
> >be properly nested, and they will then also be properly 
> nested in the 
> >result document. In fact, it's impossible to output a 
> document in which 
> >the tags aren't properly nested! So I don't think I understand the 
> >question.
> >
> >Michael Kay
> >
> >
> > XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list