RE: [xsl] Anybody know when "transform" became the term for the type ofthing XSLT does?

["Andrew Welch" <ajwelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>   Once some non-technical people I worked with referred to
> them as 'xsl
>   scripts' which was awful and something I had to put right.
>
> why?

Because I think it devalues XSLT to call it a script.  Ok, it's
interpreted rather than compiled and it's relatively small but 'script'?
That's horrible.  Just my opinion.

> Do other programming languages have this problem. What do you
> call a file full of C or java, or (coming closer to home) lisp?

No because their name carries no suggestion of their purpose.  A java
file is a class, which is suitably obscure to mean anything and conveys
great wisdom.  An xslt file is a stylesheet, a misnomer, which conveys a
lightweight scripting language at the presentation end of the process.


'stylesheet module', 'transform', neither really hit the mark for me,
but I can't think of anything better :(