On 26 Apr 2014, at 20:03, Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
According to the XDM (both 2.0 and 3.0),
"[Definition: A tree whose root node is not a Document Node is
referred to as a fragment.]"
So a fragment is a tree.
However, I have been taught (by the books of Dr. Michael Kay) that an
fragment is a node-set, that by itself may not be a well-formed
document, but wrapping this node-set in a single element parent will
make this a well-formed document.
There is an obvious contradiction in these two definitions -- in the
former a fragment must be a tree (have a root node), while in the
latter this isn't required.
Interesting. I'm not aware of any normative use of the XDM-defined term
anywhere in our specs, so I don't think it's a big issue. But I'm more familiar
with the use in the sense of the DOM DocumentFragment object, which is
essentially a Document without the constraint of having exactly one element
node and no text node children. Either that, or the URI "fragment identifier"
which means something quite different.
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--