Re: xsl 1.1 naming

FWIW, I think that calling XSL-FO XSL is problematic in the first place.
So many people don't seem to understand the difference between XSL,
XSL-FO and XSLT. It was probably unfortunate, to use "XSL" as the name
for two standards that are complementary but very different, may be used
together but don't have to. Using "XSL" as the title of the FO spec is
IMHO a bad choice and only seeds confusion. It should say "XSL-FO" if I
may say so.

On 31.08.2006 09:05:39 Dave Pawson wrote:
> A comment came up on the xslt list which you may wish to consider.
> > Just a minor point: there will never be an XSLT 1.1. Work on XSL-FO 1.1
> > is well under way:
> yes I thought of that too when the message came back, didn't think of it
> while writing. I think actually given the history of xslt 1.1 it's
> rather unfortunate that teh XSL wg have numbered XSL revision 1.1rather
> than 1.2 or 2 or something else, given that it still claims more or less
> that xslt and xsl-fo are "part" of xsl.
> regards
> -- 
> Dave Pawson

Jeremias Maerki

Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 08:03:16 UTC