On 12/02/10 11:04, Andrew Welch wrote:
The XSL 2.0 requirements document is at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslfo20-req/
I've noticed that in the recent announcement emails, and here, that
it's "XSL 2.0" in the title, but then "XSL FO" everywhere else..
including the url. Even in the abstract is says "This is the
requirements document for XSL-FO and not for XSLT", which would be
obvious if was just called "XSL-FO" all the time....
Is there a reason why it can't be referred to as "XSL-FO" whenever you
mean XSL-FO?
History?
Sometime back in ?2001 era, this list was instrumental in parting
xslt from (what is now) xsl-fo. Prior to this it was all XSL,
as defined largely by James Clark.
After the split, XSLT emerged, XSL-FO kept the XSL
as the WG name etc.
I recall complaining as you have, to Max at the W3X, about the
confusion and xsl-fo was born as a term to separate the two.
I guess XSL is the WG, so it must remain, but XSLT and
XSL-FO are the two recs in reality.
HTH
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--