Subject: RE: [xsl] Anybody know when "transform" became the term for the type ofthing XSLT does?|
From: "Andrew Welch" <ajwelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:06:04 +0100
> We use the term "transform" around here when refering to XSLT > documents, > as in 'he is working on a transform for xxx'. Once some non-technical people I worked with referred to them as 'xsl scripts' which was awful and something I had to put right. But calling them stylesheets is just as bad as it conjures up images of a lightweight language that is a second class citizen. It's frustrating because there is no styling involved whatsoever. Maybe some sculpting, shaping or constructing, but no styling. Maybe it's because x-s-l-t doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and 'stylesheet' is simply easier to say... Maybe had the acronym been XTL or TLX (or any other combination of the 3) we would all laugh at the suggestion of calling our art 'stylesheets'.