W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: standard components edits

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:25:25 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0704131925m7a5e4e53r874acdf2193433b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 4/13/07, Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/13/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> > I have a strong preference for "transform"... but I'm not going  arm
> > wrestle you for it.  :)   Anyone else?
>
> I would go with "stylesheet".
>
> I can't find a strong argument for or against "transform" or
> "stylesheet" in the XSLT specification: the root element can be either
> xsl:stylesheet or xsl:transform and the XSLT specification starts with
> "A transformation in the XSLT language is expressed in the form of a
> stylesheet". So it seems to be a wash.
>
> My preference for "stylesheet" comes from my perception that most
> people are calling that "XSLT document" a "stylesheet" rather than a
> "transform" or "transformation"; so "stylesheet" just seems more
> natural.



<rant>

That's such an abuse of terms... but that's my personal opinion.

XML to XML is a transformation

XML to "eye candy" is a stylesheet

:)

</rant>

...but I concede that 'stylesheet' is the more common term.

*sigh*


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:25:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT