- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:55:22 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29141 --- Comment #2 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1) > More complex scenarios are also possible, where the input sequence to copy() > or snapshot() contains a node N and also one or more of its ancestor or > descendant nodes. We could either allow the result to contain overlapping > copies in this case, or we could insist that in the result of copy-of, each > node is parentless and siblingless, and in the result of snapshot, each node > is siblingless (which would imply multiple copies). You mean as in: copy-of(.. | .) to return only the parent, as it already includes the current node? I think as presently written, it returns a deep copy of the parent and a deep copy of the current node, both being parentless. I think snapshot() should work the same way. Which is in line with applying templates with on-no-match="deep-copy". (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1) > John Lumley also points out that we ought to be clear in the case where the > same node is present more than once in the input sequence whether the output > sequence will also contain the same node more than once, or whether each > gets a different copy, or whether this is implementation-dependent. In > keeping with the use of new-each-time="maybe", I think it should be > implementation-dependent. I agree, it should be implementation-dependent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 07:55:33 UTC