- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:19:23 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <546c6c1c0710022319w614f6edg7d185703a213b3ac@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/3/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: > | On 10/2/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > |> > |> Ok but it suddently raise a question in my mind > |> > |> Suppose this is the content of a document > |> <?xml version="1.0"?> > |> <?my-py I like it ?> > |> <!-- my comment --> > |> <root /> > |> <!-- my comment --> > |> <?my-py I like it ?> > |> > |> If I make a for-each on it, I will loose the PI and the comments, right > ? > | > | You shouldn't because they are the children of the document. The XML > | processing instruction isn't present as a child according to the infoset > | and so shouldn't be preserved when wrapped. > > In the context of this thread, I thought Mohamed was asking if the PIs > and comments would be lost if his for-each was: > > <for-each select="root"/> > > And I think the answer then is yes. If the for-each doesn't have a > select expression, then the whole document, PIs, comments, and all > goes through. Thanks Norm, that's where I was going, so in this case, your proposal seems to propose different behavior for (NO @select) and for (@select="/") Is this intended ? Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 06:19:31 UTC