Re: copy action

>
> I am not against a `<replace>` action, in fact it is a pretty fundamental
> operation which I think we should have.
>
> But I am not sure that would have to mean "keep the element and replace
> its content". What if the `with` points to an element with a different name?
>
>
> Well, that is how setvalue works, so I thought it good to keep it
> consistent.
>

One could argue that `<setvalue>` removes the existing text node(s) and
adds new ones.


> But I might not have understood your suggestion clearly.
>
> I suggest that a `<replace>` action would in effect have to remove the
> existing element and replace it with another, but it would do so as an
> indivisible operation from the perspective of the user of the action.
>
> Sounds feasible.
>

Yes :)

-Erik