In either case, though, the two documents are equivalent since the
FitnessCenter element is in no namespace either way.
As I said, not true. Namespace bindings are, unfortunately, a
significant part of the document --- if someone was trying to express
a qname in an attribute value, for example, they might care that the
binding was omittied.
Furthermore, in section 7.1.1 (Literal Result Elements), the XSLT spec
says "The created element node will also have a copy of the namespace
nodes that were present on the element node in the stylesheet tree with
the exception of any namespace node whose string-value is the XSLT
namespace URI (|http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform|), a namespace URI
declared as an extension namespace (see [*14.1 Extension Elements*]
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#extension-element>), or a namespace URI
designated as an excluded namespace."
Therefore, Xalan is correct and Saxon is wrong for this particular
stylesheet and input. However, as I said earlier, when I run this in my
local copy of Saxon, it works fine.
 --- don't blame me, I didn't write the specs!
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list