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 12:38:15 +0100 |
> Andrew Welch wrote: > > I bet everyone still uses <xsl:stylesheet> over <xsl:transform> (I > > know I do...even though it makes far more sense to use the latter!) > > You could use <xsl:transform> for a data-centric stylesheet(?) and > <xsl:stylesheet> for a stylesheet that creates an XSL-FO document or > something similar. > > This would indicate what kind of stylesheet it is; but it may confuse > many people, that don't know the alias <xsl:transform>. I think 'stylesheet' is the wrong term all round really. Even when you are creating an FO document you are still transforming one xml document into another - the result happens to be a stylesheet but the process is still an XML transformation. I guess it's just an historical thing that's stuck when we use xsl:stylesheet and call them stylesheets. A question: when referring to an XSLT file, is there any other term to use than 'stylesheet' that's more accurate?
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Anybody know when "transf, Andrew Welch | Thread | Re: [xsl] Anybody know when "transf, Emmanouil Batsis |
RE: [xsl] preceding/following chara, Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] xsl:include and "Keyword div , Hardy Merrill |
Month |