- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:49:37 +0200
- To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:05 PM, <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 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. +1 J > > 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 >> > >
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 17:50:16 UTC