[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: constraints - odd question
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> > No, the problem is that you don't know what the element names are in > advance. Any elements are permitted, but there can be no duplication of > names. I don't think the solution you proposed deals with that, unless > I've missed something significant in XML Schema. Oh, I get it. OK, then what about a variant of Ken's expression? <pattern> <rule context="properties/*"> <report test="previous-sibling::*[name(.)=name(current())]" >There should not be duplicate properties</report> </rule> </pattern> I made it previous-sibling because then the error is reported at the subsequent occurrence rather than at the first one. A different way to do it might be <pattern> <rule context="properties/*"> <assert test="count(../*[name(.)=name(current())])=1" >There should not be duplicate properties</report> </rule> </pattern> but you would get a repeated message for the original and the duplicate and involve twice the comparisons as the former. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|