OK, Dimitre, I give up. I know you've got a rabbit up your sleeve, and I
can't ferret it out.

I was thinking the catch might be that a node produced by copying can never
be "identical" to the original, but I can't imagine that's what you had in
mind.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitre Novatchev [mailto:dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 21 September 2005 13:48
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject:  Strict sequential identity rule?
> 
> Hi,
> I think that trying to answer the following question can be 
> interesting and
> useful for the members of our community.
> 
>  Is the following statement true or false:
> 
> "The transformation below is an identity transformation":
> 
>  <xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
> xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
> 	<xsl:output omit-xml-declaration="yes"/>
> 	<xsl:template match="@* | node()">
> 		<xsl:copy>
> 			<xsl:apply-templates select="@*"/>
> 			<xsl:apply-templates select="node()[1]"/>
> 		</xsl:copy>
> 		<xsl:apply-templates 
> select="following-sibling::node()[1]"/>
> 	</xsl:template>
> </xsl:stylesheet>
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev
> ---------------------------------------
> Getting caught is the mother of invention.