Re: [xsl] Re: <?XSL?> - Oh what a tangled web w3 weave :)

[AndrewWatt2000@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 07/01/01 15:05:36 GMT Standard Time, 
Arved_37@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 04:52:21 EST, Andrew Watt wrote:
>  
>  <quote>
>  1. Confine the generic term "XSL" to situations which refer to XSLFO _and_
>  XSLT collectively.
>  2. When referring to XSL Formatting Objects the abbreviation to be used
>  should be either "XSL-FO" or "XSLFO".
>  3. When referring to XSL Transformations the abbreviation used should be
>  "XSL-T" or "XSLT".
>  4. It should be recognised that there are two "XSL Namespaces". The XSLT
>  Namespace is http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform. The XSL-FO Namespace is
>  http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.
>  5. The confusing "indicative prefix" (my term) for those two namespaces
>  should be corrected/made consistent. I would suggest that the XSLT 
namespace
>  use the "indicative prefix" of "xslt" rather than "xsl" i.e. the present
>  <xsl:stylesheet> element would become <xslt:stylesheet>. Similarly the "fo"
>  indicative prefix would become "xslfo" i.e. <fo:root> would become
>  <xslfo:root>.
>  </quote>
>  
>  Agreed on all counts.
>  
>  Furthermore, I would personally argue for more consistent use of the word 
>  "stylesheet". Reading the specs one senses that there are 2 kinds of 
>  stylesheet - a generalized XSLT stylesheet that can produce anything when 
it 
> 
>  is applied, and an XSL (XSLT + XSLFO) stylesheet that produces XSLFO when 
it 
> 
>  is applied. And I think the term "stylesheet" is used in the first 
instance 
>  because nobody has thought of anything better.
>  
>  Still, if a stylesheet is used in a middleware application to condition 
>  data, is that "styling"? I think not.
>  
>  I have no good suggestions for what to call a general XML document using 
the 
> 
>  XSLT namespace and _any_ result namespaces. I suspect a lot of general 
users 
> 
>  think a stylesheet is involved if one gets visual output by applying XSLT 
to 
> 
>  some XML to produce HTML or WML, so the waters are already badly muddied. 
In 
> 
>  fact, I'd argue that even if the XSLT "thing" is producing an HTML+CSS 
>  result, it's still not an XSLT stylesheet...XSLT is doing no styling, CSS 
is.
> 
>  
>  I think, but cannot prove, that the use of the word "stylesheet" in XSLT 
>  (hence <xsl:stylesheet>) started early enough in the spec process that 
folks 
> 
>  were often thinking XSLT + XSLFO (that is, "XSL"), not just XSLT. 
>  Particularly if the spec people were mostly "document-centric". Now of 
>  course the data side of XML has really exploded, and XSLT is being used in 
>  ways that I believe were not originally anticipated, or just weren't that 
>  prominent on the radar. The terminology doesn't reflect that shift, though.
>  
>  Me, I think I'll just start calling an XSLT "thing" a "program". :-) If 
the 
>  result of an XSLT program is XSLFO then I'll call it a stylesheet.
>  

Arved,

Thanks for the positive comments about the suggestions on a way to 
disambiguate the term "XSL". I agree that when XSLT is being applied in a 
setting which is essentially divorced from "style" that the term "style 
sheet" seems inappropriate.

The XSLT 1.0 Recommendation, as far as I recall, indicates that the 
<xsl:stylesheet> and <xsl:transform> elements are synonymous. It does not, 
however, use the term "transformation sheet".

Michael Kay, in his XSLT Programmer's Reference, sometimes used the term 
"transformation sheet" when referring to XSLT "style sheets". :) It seems to 
me that that is a useful and meaningful term to use when referring to XSL 
transformations which do not involve styling.

The term "transformation sheet" seems a fairly natural one when carrying out 
non- styling XSL transformations. At least it seems natural to me. :)

The XSLT 1.1 Recommendation might usefully, in a "non-normative" way, 
indicate that such terminology is to be encouraged.

Andrew Watt

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list