So we discussed this in the call, and I thought about an example to illustrate the effect using <insert/>, but I'm still not happy. <trigger label="Copy value"> <action ev:event="DOMActivate"> <setvalue ref="total" value="instance('source')/total"/> </action> </trigger> <trigger label="Copy content"> <action ev:event="DOMActivate"> <insert ref="address" origin="instance('source')/address"/> <delete ref="address[1]"/> </action> </trigger> From an abstract point of view, it is doing something different, removing the element, and replacing it with something else. I still would prefer something that leaves the referenced element, and replaces its content with the content of another element: <trigger label="Copy content"> <action ev:event="DOMActivate"> <replace ref="address" with="instance('source')/address"/> </action> </trigger> (This is only a strawman; <setcontent/> would also be fine). I agree that there are some issues to discuss, such as what to do with attributes, but I still think this is more obvious than the insert/delete route. Steven On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:47:30 +0100, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote: > The funniest things come to you just as you are falling asleep. > > I was thinking how if you had a hidden select1 with an itemset with > <copy/>, and then used a setvalue to change the value of the select1, > you could use it to copy whole subtrees from one instance to another, > > But then I realised that that just means we are missing a <copy/> action > to go alongside <setvalue/>. > > StevenReceived on Thursday, 21 March 2019 15:31:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:51 UTC