W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: A need for consistency and precision when referring to "XSL"

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: 22 Jan 2001 12:43:48 +0100
To: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
Cc: XSL-FO@egroups.com, xsl-editors@w3.org
Message-ID: <878zo37qx7.fsf@sophia.inria.fr>
AndrewWatt2001@aol.com writes:

> XSLT cannot be used independently of "XSL" since XSLT is _part of_
> "XSL"

Why not? XPath is part of XSLT, but is used independently (by XLink,
as it happens).

> Does XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT or is XSL = XSL-FO?

XSL = XSLT + XPath + XSL, hence XSLT+XPath=0!  Just kidding :) XSL
includes XSLT, and that's the only 'equation' one should write (or you
could as well write XSL = XSLT+Xpath+FOs+CSS+XMLNameSpaces+XML, etc.)

> The same inconsistency also appears in the current XSL-FO CR. 

Again, I don't see why a subset of a spec can't be used independently
and hence use a different namespace.

> At present neither precision nor consistency is achieved.

It seems that things would be clearer to you if XSL was renamed XSL-FO
or something similar and if the two specs were made independent. Well,
one doesn't want that, as that would mean that XSL-FO can be used
without XSLT, and that is just Wrong (as it's explained in the XSL
spec).

> 1. Confine the generic term "XSL" to situations which refer to XSLFO
> _and_ XSLT collectively.

It seems to me that this is most people's understanding.

> 2. When referring to XSL Formatting Objects the abbreviation to be
> used should be either "XSL-FO" or "XSLFO".

That's also the case.

> 3. When referring to XSL Transformations the abbreviation used
> should be "XSL-T" or "XSLT".

ditto.

> 4. It should be recognised that there are two "XSL Namespaces". The
> XSLT Namespace has a namespace URI of
> http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform. The XSL-FO Namespace has a
> namespace URI of http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.

But everybody knows that! If you want, I hereby recognise that there
are two XSL Namespaces.

> 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. as an example, 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>.

The namespace prefix is something you decide when you write your XML
file. It can be 'xslt:', 'britneyspears:', you name it. And you can
write '<xslt:transform ...>' rather than '<xsl:stylesheet>' if you
want.

I agree that using xsl: in the text of the xslt spec is probably not
the best choice. You might want to re-submit that to xsl-editors (in a
shorter message).

> [ With regard to the more specific problem relating to the naming of
> the current XSL-FO CR could that not be called the "Extensible
> Stylesheet Language Formatting Objects, XSL-FO" Recommendation in
> due time?

no.

BTW, what's XSL-FO@egroups.com?

Max.
W3C XSLTFO working group.
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 06:44:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:52 GMT