Subject: Re: xsl:transform From: crism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:58:26 -0700 |
[Elliotte Rusty Harold] >I just noticed that the April 21 working draft of XSLT introduced >xsl:transform as an exact synonym for xsl:stylesheet. This duplication >has continued into the current proposed recommendation. Why was this >done? I can understand preferring xsl:transform to xsl:stylesheet, but >why are there two elements for exactly the same purpose? Wouldn't it be >simpler to just pick one? Simpler, but politically sticky. Some people wanted to use XSLT just for transforms, and didn't want to mention "stylesheet" at all. At the same time, XSLT was developed in support of a stylesheet language, and intended primarily for use as same, and getting rid of the word "stylesheet" would have been politically incorrect for a number of reasons. The programmers on the WG agreed that supporting two names for the same thing is trivial, and someone explaining the language can mention the synonym once (if at all) and use the name of their choice consistently in discussions and examples. -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Exemplary Technologies One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Answer to question -- Striping whit, Garriss Jr.,James P. | Thread | Re: xsl:transform, Oren Ben-Kiki |
Re: xsl:transform, Oren Ben-Kiki | Date | xsl:transform, Elliotte Rusty Harol |
Month |