The naked owner still has title to the shares and the voting rights, but the income on the shares (the dividends) goes to the usufructuary.

In a common-law jurisdiction I suppose you would say that one person has a life interest in the income from the shares, but another person is the owner entitled to vote them.

Each share is still a full share, not a fractional share.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 153 days (2011-11-30 08:00:12 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Although this answer would appear to meet HM Revenue & Customs' definition ("A share dividend is said to be ‘stripped’ when the owner of the share sells or transfers the right to receive a distributions payable in respect of the share, without selling or transferring the share."), I have come to the conclusion that this phraseology is not ideal for describing split ownership of property rights under civil law, where the naked owner has the right of disposition and the usufructuary has the rights of use and enjoyment. When bonds are stripped, two separate securities are created in fact or in effect: principle-only and interest-only. Here, one share remains one share on the company's register, but the three separate property rights in it belong to different owners. When true equity strips come into being (patents have already been filed!), they *will* result in two different securities.
Anglophone law professors who explain the differences in property ownership between common law and civil law *do* resort to the term "dismemberment" in this context. Perhaps we should too.