On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 11:04 +0000, 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?
As Dave Pawson has commented, the name is historical.
There's some support within the XSL-FO task force, a subgroup of the
XSL Working Group, for renaming it to XSL-FO more formally, but
I don't think we've taken the issue up with the XSL Working Group.
Personally I agree with you, it's confusing. If XSLT was formally
called XSL - Transformations, and XSL-FO was called XSL-Formatting,
the relationship would be much clearer, but I think "XSLT" is also
rather entrenched.
We put the clarification into the requirements because we know people
are confused: a requirements document isn't the place to announce
a change of name, though, of course.
Maybe with XSL-FO 2.0 we should just use a completely different
name, like "Hyacinth" or "Rupert"... :-)
At any rate it's good to see interest in the spec!
Thanks,
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--