Re: [XSL-FO] Why Formatting "Objects"?
- At 04:35 AM 02/06/2001 -0500, AndrewWatt2001@... wrote:
>I apologise if the answer to that question is obvious to everybody but me,Well, I don't have any inside information, other than what I could get from
>but on several occasions I have wondered why Formatting "Objects" rather
>than, for example, "Formatting Elements" or even "Formatting Nodes".
>And, for that matter, why "XSL-FO" why not just "XSL-F" a la XSLT?
having subscribed to XSL-List from early 1998 on. But the first WD
(http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-xsl-19980818) of what was then just one spec
referred to them as flow (rather than formatting) objects, although the
term formatting objects was also used in that draft. The term flow objects
came straight out of DSSSL, on which the first WD was based. I do
understand why "element" or "node" might have been used, but object isn't
bad either -- objects have their own properties and behaviors, maybe that's
what they were thinking of (rather than the "content" orientation of a word
As for the abbreviation, I don't remember there being any real discussion
about it. XSL-FO just "was" -- no one ever even floated XSL-F, I think.
It's not really at odds with the abbreviation "XSLT," in the sense that
both consist of the abbreviation for the root spec, followed by a
reasonable abbreviation for the, uh, sub-spec. (OTOH, I have always been
perplexed by the superfluous hyphen in "XSL-FO." Go figure. :)
John E. Simpson | "Is it weird in here, or is it just
http://www.flixml.org | me?" -- Steven Wright
XML Q&A: www.xml.com |