On 7/31/06, David Carlisle <davidc(_at_)nag(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
> how do you go about making it explicit
if you want it really explict you could use
<xsl:variable as="document-node()">
<xsl:document>
... stuff
but note that the main (perhaps) difference between
<xsl:variable name="x">
<xsl:sequence select="foo"/>
</xsl:sequence>
and
<xsl:variable name="x" as="element()*">
<xsl:sequence select="foo"/>
</xsl:sequence>
isn't so much the implict document node as the implict copying. in the
second case $x references foo nodes in their original trees, whereas in
the first case, the nodes are _copied_ into the temporary tree so it's
the same as if you had used copy-of rather than sequence, so you get new
nodes with new identities, and unless MK is kindly optimising stuff
away, new memory usage.
Thanks, that makes sense (...I think :-)
In this case:
<xsl:variable name="foo" as="document-node()">
<xsl:document>
<foo/>
<foo/>
<foo/>
</xsl:document>
</xsl:variable>
There is a document node and three child elements, that are siblings
of one another but that do not have a common parent? How come in this
case there doesn't have to be a single root node?
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--