Re: Semantics of p:wrap

"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
> I think you are right and that I got it wrong when implementing it (and
> creating the test). The change you are proposing definitely makes things
> clearer.

Great, thanks.

> Regards,
> Vojtech
>
>> The spec says:
>> 
>> ...[a] node that matches the specified match pattern is replaced with
>> a new element node whose QName is the value specified in the wrapper
>> option. The content of that new element is a copy of the original,
>> matching node.
>> 
>> I don't think that the wrap process recurses into matched nodes. The
>> spec is ambiguously worded, however, and I propose the following
>> change to fix it:
>> 
>>   When the match pattern does not match the document node, each node
>>   that matches the specified match pattern is replaced with a new
>>   element node whose QName is the value specified in the wrapper
>>   option. The content of that new element is a copy of the original,
>>   matching node. The wrap step performs a "shallow" wrapping, it does
>>   not process the content of a matching node for further matches.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The trip doesn't exist that can set you
http://nwalsh.com/            | beyond the reach of cravings, fits of
                              | temper, or fears. If it did, the human
                              | race would be off there in a body.--
                              | Seneca