David Carlisle wrote:

>   They're differents things.  Nodes are nodes in a tree, while
>   items are just items of a sequence.  Nodes can be text(),
>   element(), etc.

> Not exactly, every value that matches node() also matches
> item() but item() also includes atomic values.

  Indeed.  But you're right, I wasn't clear.

> In Xpath2 nodes don't have to be in a tree, if you go

> <xsl:variable name="x" as="element()">
> <x/>
> </xsl:variable>

  Yes.  Actualy, I'm used to think about that as a tree whose the
root is not a document-node().  Mmh, yes, not really a tree.

> then $x is an element node that does not live in a tree (it has
> no parent, and no children) some Xpath functions are restricted
> to elements that _do_ live in a tree (defined as meaning that
> root() is an instance of document-node()) but most operations
> on these parentless elements work as you would expect (so long
> as you expect the right thing)

  Thanks for these precisions.  Which functions do you think
about (that requires argument element to live in a tree)?

  Regards,

--drkm






















	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Nouveau : tiliphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Dicouvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Tilichargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com