Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

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

Expand Messages
  • AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
    Robert & others, The issue addressed in this post may go some way to help some list members understand why they are having problems understanding parts of the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 16, 2001
      Robert & others,

      The issue addressed in this post may go some way to help some list members
      understand why they are having problems understanding parts of the "XSL"
      Candidate Recommendation, which in my view would be better termed as the
      "XSL-FO" CR.

      What follows is a slight re-edit of a past post on another list.

      ***Re-edited quote begins***

      This post is a plea for a beginning in consistent use of the term "XSL" in
      W3C documents. The current CR stage of XSL-FO and the first WD of XSLT 1.1
      give an opportunity to W3C to remove longstanding inconsistent usage and to
      introduce coherence and consistency.

      For those who have not yet considered the problem let me summarise the
      difficulty and inconsistency by the use of two "equations" which summarise
      two mutually contradictory positions about what "XSL" is which are taken
      (implicitly or explicitly) in the current versions of W3C documents.

      To avoid ambiguity I use the term "XSLT" to indicate XSL Transformations and
      the term "XSL-FO" to indicate XSL Formatting Objects.

      The two equations are:
      1. XSL = XSLT + XSL-FO (see e.g. Abstract of XSL-FO CR)
      2. XSL = XSL-FO

      Stated as baldly as this I expect to potentially elicit howls of protest
      along the lines
      of "Of course XSL is the summation of XSLT and XSL-FO". But the statements
      currently present in various W3C documents contradict this assumed clarity
      and consistency.

      Let me illustrate. .... In the XSLT 1.0 Recommendation of November 1999 it is
      stated in the Abstract, "XSLT is also designed to be used independently of
      XSL.", a statement which cannot be true if XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT (XSLT cannot
      be used independently of "XSL" since XSLT is _part of_ "XSL") and
      contradicts, for example, the Abstract of the XSL-FO CR. However the
      statement also
      contradicts the position taken earlier in the Abstract of XSLT 1.0: "In
      addition to XSLT, XSL includes ....". So, XSLT seems to be "included in" XSL
      but
      is also can be used "independent of" it. Something doesn't add up. What is
      happening is that the first part of the preceding sentence refers implicitly
      to equation 1. and the latter part to equation 2.

      Thus, in theXSLT 1.0 Recommendation (and repeated verbatim in the XSLT 1.1
      WD) we have the use of both "equations". Which equation is true? Does XSL =
      XSL-FO + XSLT or is XSL = XSL-FO? XSLT 1.0 effectively uses these two mutually
      contradictory positions within a few lines of each other.

      The same inconsistency also appears in the current XSL-FO CR. As mentioned
      above the Abstract indicates unequivocally that XSL includes both XSLT and
      XSL-FO. But in Section 2, confusingly labelled "Introduction to XSL
      Transformations" it is stated, "The XSL namespace has the URI
      http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.". The placement of a statement about what
      I would call the XSL-FO namespace in a section on XSLT is confusing enough.
      But if, as the Abstract of the CR implicitly states, XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT then
      there are two "XSL" namespaces viz. http:www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format AND
      http://www.w3.org/XSL/Transform, not one as the XSL-FO CR states.

      There are many ways of slicing up these inconsistencies but, in my view, they
      are founded in the use of "XSL" in the same documents to have two distinct
      meanings. Is "XSL" the same as "XSL-FO + XSLT"? Or is "XSL" the same as
      "XSL-FO"?

      I would suggest that the W3C "XSL" editors ... by which I mean the editors
      for the XSL-FO CR and the new XSLT 1.1 WD need to decide what "XSL" is and
      then use the term precisely and consistently. At present neither precision
      nor consistency is achieved.

      I hope these two examples serve to illustrate the ambiguity or inconsistency
      of the use of the term "XSL" in current W3C documents. I could, quite
      possibly, go on at length about how the inconsistency plays out in various
      W3C documents. Rather, I think it is more important to find a solution that
      is logical, clear and consistent.

      Suffice to say that the inconsistency within XSL/XSL-FO/XSLT specs plays out
      to some degree in other specs too.

      My suggestion for how to move toward coherence would be:

      1. Confine the generic term "XSL" to situations which refer to XSLFO _and_
      XSLT collectively.
      2. When referring to XSL Formatting Objects the abbreviation to be used
      should be either "XSL-FO" or "XSLFO".
      3. When referring to XSL Transformations the abbreviation used should be
      "XSL-T" or "XSLT".
      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.
      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>.

      I would propose that the W3C Core XML Group (do I have the terminology
      correct?) review the current inconsistency in terminology across W3C specs
      currently in draft or under revision and give clear, unambiguous guidance on
      which meaning "XSL" has in W3C documents.

      <side_issue>
      [ 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? And could
      another very short "XSL" REC indicate that XSL version 1.0 subsumes the XSLT
      REC of November 1999 and the XSL-FO REC, currently at CR stage? Then when
      XSLT 1.1 is finalised "XSL 1.1" could be defined as "XSL-FO 1.0" plus "XSLT
      1.1"? Just a thought. :) ]
      </side_issue>

      Consistent usage of the term "XSL" is desirable. With the current fluidity of
      a XSL-FO CR and an XSLT 1.1 WD there is an early opportunity for W3C to
      introduce consistency where hitherto inconsistent and confusing usage of the
      term "XSL" has been rather too visible.

      *** Re-edited quote ends ***

      Returning to Robert's question about the "fo" namespace and the confusion
      that that term caused him - If my suggestions were adopted we would refer to
      that as the XSL-FO namespace with, in my view, much less ambiguity than a
      supposed but essentially spurious "XSL namespace".

      Sorry, to those for which this is pretty hard going. You need to be fairly
      familiar with how the specs use the terms to see that there is a problem. And
      perhaps more familiar to diagnose it and suggest a (hopefully coherent)
      remedy.

      I hope that the XSL-editors wil prove responsive to these suggestions. It
      would make teaching some parts of XSL/XSL-FO/XSLT to relative beginners just
      a little bit easier if the "standard" terms were used consistently in the
      definitive documents.

      Andrew Watt
    • r_diblasi@hotmail.com
      Andrew, I have to say that you have hit the nail firmly on the head and Chris s observation is most likely the cause of the problem.... I think you proposal is
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 16, 2001
        Andrew,

        I have to say that you have hit the nail firmly on the head and
        Chris's observation is most likely the cause of the problem....

        I think you proposal is right on the mark ....but of course the real
        world maybe harsh on this suggestion ......it would break a lot of
        code ...better to break early than late......
        suggestion.....
        maybe just correct the spec and live the namespace alone....I'm not a
        fan of this suggestion...but it would make it sooooo much easier to
        teach others......believe it or not some of use the spec to teach
        others.......watch out for the sentence in the "xsl-fo spec" :-) were
        it states that it is not tutorial in nature:
        "This document is intended for implementors of such XSL
        processors. Although it can be used as a reference manual for writers
        of XSL style sheets, it is not tutorial in nature" I think that your
        logic about the miss use of the term "XSL" would still
        stand.....Implementors need to understand to......

        good job of stating this problem......
        Robert A. DiBlasi
        --- In XSL-FO@egroups.com, "Chris Ryland" <cpr@e...> wrote:
        > Andrew--
        >
        > I share your annoyance/concern.
        >
        > I think the schizophrenia involved with the committee's terminology
        comes
        > from the days when XSL encompassed both -T and -FO in one standard.
        They
        > were later broken into two separate standard proposals.
        >
        > Now that they're separate, the simple fact is that XSLT is getting
        most of
        > the attention and press, and -FO tends to be forgotten in the "real
        world".
        >
        > But, yes, I can't help but second your proposal for more accuracy
        in the
        > standards documents themselves.
        >
        > Cheers!
        > Chris Ryland * Em Software, Inc. * www.emsoftware.com
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: <AndrewWatt2001@a...>
        > To: <XSL-FO@egroups.com>
        > Cc: <xsl-editors@w...>
        > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:43 PM
        > Subject: [XSL-FO] A need for consistency and precision when
        referring to
        > "XSL"
        >
        >
        > > Robert & others,
        > >
        > > The issue addressed in this post may go some way to help some
        list members
        > > understand why they are having problems understanding parts of
        the "XSL"
        > > Candidate Recommendation, which in my view would be better termed
        as the
        > > "XSL-FO" CR.
        > >
        > > What follows is a slight re-edit of a past post on another list.
        > >
        > > ***Re-edited quote begins***
        > >
        > > This post is a plea for a beginning in consistent use of the
        term "XSL" in
        > > W3C documents. The current CR stage of XSL-FO and the first WD of
        XSLT 1.1
        > > give an opportunity to W3C to remove longstanding inconsistent
        usage and
        > to
        > > introduce coherence and consistency.
        > >
        > > For those who have not yet considered the problem let me
        summarise the
        > > difficulty and inconsistency by the use of two "equations" which
        summarise
        > > two mutually contradictory positions about what "XSL" is which
        are taken
        > > (implicitly or explicitly) in the current versions of W3C
        documents.
        > >
        > > To avoid ambiguity I use the term "XSLT" to indicate XSL
        Transformations
        > and
        > > the term "XSL-FO" to indicate XSL Formatting Objects.
        > >
        > > The two equations are:
        > > 1. XSL = XSLT + XSL-FO (see e.g. Abstract of XSL-FO CR)
        > > 2. XSL = XSL-FO
        > >
        > > Stated as baldly as this I expect to potentially elicit howls of
        protest
        > > along the lines
        > > of "Of course XSL is the summation of XSLT and XSL-FO". But the
        statements
        > > currently present in various W3C documents contradict this
        assumed clarity
        > > and consistency.
        > >
        > > Let me illustrate. .... In the XSLT 1.0 Recommendation of
        November 1999 it
        > is
        > > stated in the Abstract, "XSLT is also designed to be used
        independently of
        > > XSL.", a statement which cannot be true if XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT
        (XSLT
        > cannot
        > > be used independently of "XSL" since XSLT is _part of_ "XSL") and
        > > contradicts, for example, the Abstract of the XSL-FO CR. However
        the
        > > statement also
        > > contradicts the position taken earlier in the Abstract of XSLT
        1.0: "In
        > > addition to XSLT, XSL includes ....". So, XSLT seems to
        be "included in"
        > XSL
        > > but
        > > is also can be used "independent of" it. Something doesn't add
        up. What is
        > > happening is that the first part of the preceding sentence refers
        > implicitly
        > > to equation 1. and the latter part to equation 2.
        > >
        > > Thus, in theXSLT 1.0 Recommendation (and repeated verbatim in the
        XSLT 1.1
        > > WD) we have the use of both "equations". Which equation is true?
        Does XSL
        > =
        > > XSL-FO + XSLT or is XSL = XSL-FO? XSLT 1.0 effectively uses these
        two
        > mutually
        > > contradictory positions within a few lines of each other.
        > >
        > > The same inconsistency also appears in the current XSL-FO CR. As
        mentioned
        > > above the Abstract indicates unequivocally that XSL includes both
        XSLT and
        > > XSL-FO. But in Section 2, confusingly labelled "Introduction to
        XSL
        > > Transformations" it is stated, "The XSL namespace has the URI
        > > http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.". The placement of a statement
        about
        > what
        > > I would call the XSL-FO namespace in a section on XSLT is
        confusing
        > enough.
        > > But if, as the Abstract of the CR implicitly states, XSL = XSL-FO
        + XSLT
        > then
        > > there are two "XSL" namespaces viz.
        http:www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format AND
        > > http://www.w3.org/XSL/Transform, not one as the XSL-FO CR states.
        > >
        > > There are many ways of slicing up these inconsistencies but, in
        my view,
        > they
        > > are founded in the use of "XSL" in the same documents to have two
        distinct
        > > meanings. Is "XSL" the same as "XSL-FO + XSLT"? Or is "XSL" the
        same as
        > > "XSL-FO"?
        > >
        > > I would suggest that the W3C "XSL" editors ... by which I mean
        the editors
        > > for the XSL-FO CR and the new XSLT 1.1 WD need to decide
        what "XSL" is and
        > > then use the term precisely and consistently. At present neither
        precision
        > > nor consistency is achieved.
        > >
        > > I hope these two examples serve to illustrate the ambiguity or
        > inconsistency
        > > of the use of the term "XSL" in current W3C documents. I could,
        quite
        > > possibly, go on at length about how the inconsistency plays out
        in various
        > > W3C documents. Rather, I think it is more important to find a
        solution
        > that
        > > is logical, clear and consistent.
        > >
        > > Suffice to say that the inconsistency within XSL/XSL-FO/XSLT
        specs plays
        > out
        > > to some degree in other specs too.
        > >
        > > My suggestion for how to move toward coherence would be:
        > >
        > > 1. Confine the generic term "XSL" to situations which refer to
        XSLFO _and_
        > > XSLT collectively.
        > > 2. When referring to XSL Formatting Objects the abbreviation to
        be used
        > > should be either "XSL-FO" or "XSLFO".
        > > 3. When referring to XSL Transformations the abbreviation used
        should be
        > > "XSL-T" or "XSLT".
        > > 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.
        > > 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>.
        > >
        > > I would propose that the W3C Core XML Group (do I have the
        terminology
        > > correct?) review the current inconsistency in terminology across
        W3C specs
        > > currently in draft or under revision and give clear, unambiguous
        guidance
        > on
        > > which meaning "XSL" has in W3C documents.
        > >
        > > <side_issue>
        > > [ 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?
        And could
        > > another very short "XSL" REC indicate that XSL version 1.0
        subsumes the
        > XSLT
        > > REC of November 1999 and the XSL-FO REC, currently at CR stage?
        Then when
        > > XSLT 1.1 is finalised "XSL 1.1" could be defined as "XSL-FO 1.0"
        plus
        > "XSLT
        > > 1.1"? Just a thought. :) ]
        > > </side_issue>
        > >
        > > Consistent usage of the term "XSL" is desirable. With the current
        fluidity
        > of
        > > a XSL-FO CR and an XSLT 1.1 WD there is an early opportunity for
        W3C to
        > > introduce consistency where hitherto inconsistent and confusing
        usage of
        > the
        > > term "XSL" has been rather too visible.
        > >
        > > *** Re-edited quote ends ***
        > >
        > > Returning to Robert's question about the "fo" namespace and the
        confusion
        > > that that term caused him - If my suggestions were adopted we
        would refer
        > to
        > > that as the XSL-FO namespace with, in my view, much less
        ambiguity than a
        > > supposed but essentially spurious "XSL namespace".
        > >
        > > Sorry, to those for which this is pretty hard going. You need to
        be fairly
        > > familiar with how the specs use the terms to see that there is a
        problem.
        > And
        > > perhaps more familiar to diagnose it and suggest a (hopefully
        coherent)
        > > remedy.
        > >
        > > I hope that the XSL-editors wil prove responsive to these
        suggestions. It
        > > would make teaching some parts of XSL/XSL-FO/XSLT to relative
        beginners
        > just
        > > a little bit easier if the "standard" terms were used
        consistently in the
        > > definitive documents.
        > >
        > > Andrew Watt
        > >
        > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > XSL-FO-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        > >
        > >
      • Chris Ryland
        Andrew-- I share your annoyance/concern. I think the schizophrenia involved with the committee s terminology comes from the days when XSL encompassed both -T
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 16, 2001
          Andrew--

          I share your annoyance/concern.

          I think the schizophrenia involved with the committee's terminology comes
          from the days when XSL encompassed both -T and -FO in one standard. They
          were later broken into two separate standard proposals.

          Now that they're separate, the simple fact is that XSLT is getting most of
          the attention and press, and -FO tends to be forgotten in the "real world".

          But, yes, I can't help but second your proposal for more accuracy in the
          standards documents themselves.

          Cheers!
          Chris Ryland * Em Software, Inc. * www.emsoftware.com
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <AndrewWatt2001@...>
          To: <XSL-FO@egroups.com>
          Cc: <xsl-editors@...>
          Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 12:43 PM
          Subject: [XSL-FO] A need for consistency and precision when referring to
          "XSL"


          > Robert & others,
          >
          > The issue addressed in this post may go some way to help some list members
          > understand why they are having problems understanding parts of the "XSL"
          > Candidate Recommendation, which in my view would be better termed as the
          > "XSL-FO" CR.
          >
          > What follows is a slight re-edit of a past post on another list.
          >
          > ***Re-edited quote begins***
          >
          > This post is a plea for a beginning in consistent use of the term "XSL" in
          > W3C documents. The current CR stage of XSL-FO and the first WD of XSLT 1.1
          > give an opportunity to W3C to remove longstanding inconsistent usage and
          to
          > introduce coherence and consistency.
          >
          > For those who have not yet considered the problem let me summarise the
          > difficulty and inconsistency by the use of two "equations" which summarise
          > two mutually contradictory positions about what "XSL" is which are taken
          > (implicitly or explicitly) in the current versions of W3C documents.
          >
          > To avoid ambiguity I use the term "XSLT" to indicate XSL Transformations
          and
          > the term "XSL-FO" to indicate XSL Formatting Objects.
          >
          > The two equations are:
          > 1. XSL = XSLT + XSL-FO (see e.g. Abstract of XSL-FO CR)
          > 2. XSL = XSL-FO
          >
          > Stated as baldly as this I expect to potentially elicit howls of protest
          > along the lines
          > of "Of course XSL is the summation of XSLT and XSL-FO". But the statements
          > currently present in various W3C documents contradict this assumed clarity
          > and consistency.
          >
          > Let me illustrate. .... In the XSLT 1.0 Recommendation of November 1999 it
          is
          > stated in the Abstract, "XSLT is also designed to be used independently of
          > XSL.", a statement which cannot be true if XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT (XSLT
          cannot
          > be used independently of "XSL" since XSLT is _part of_ "XSL") and
          > contradicts, for example, the Abstract of the XSL-FO CR. However the
          > statement also
          > contradicts the position taken earlier in the Abstract of XSLT 1.0: "In
          > addition to XSLT, XSL includes ....". So, XSLT seems to be "included in"
          XSL
          > but
          > is also can be used "independent of" it. Something doesn't add up. What is
          > happening is that the first part of the preceding sentence refers
          implicitly
          > to equation 1. and the latter part to equation 2.
          >
          > Thus, in theXSLT 1.0 Recommendation (and repeated verbatim in the XSLT 1.1
          > WD) we have the use of both "equations". Which equation is true? Does XSL
          =
          > XSL-FO + XSLT or is XSL = XSL-FO? XSLT 1.0 effectively uses these two
          mutually
          > contradictory positions within a few lines of each other.
          >
          > The same inconsistency also appears in the current XSL-FO CR. As mentioned
          > above the Abstract indicates unequivocally that XSL includes both XSLT and
          > XSL-FO. But in Section 2, confusingly labelled "Introduction to XSL
          > Transformations" it is stated, "The XSL namespace has the URI
          > http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.". The placement of a statement about
          what
          > I would call the XSL-FO namespace in a section on XSLT is confusing
          enough.
          > But if, as the Abstract of the CR implicitly states, XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT
          then
          > there are two "XSL" namespaces viz. http:www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format AND
          > http://www.w3.org/XSL/Transform, not one as the XSL-FO CR states.
          >
          > There are many ways of slicing up these inconsistencies but, in my view,
          they
          > are founded in the use of "XSL" in the same documents to have two distinct
          > meanings. Is "XSL" the same as "XSL-FO + XSLT"? Or is "XSL" the same as
          > "XSL-FO"?
          >
          > I would suggest that the W3C "XSL" editors ... by which I mean the editors
          > for the XSL-FO CR and the new XSLT 1.1 WD need to decide what "XSL" is and
          > then use the term precisely and consistently. At present neither precision
          > nor consistency is achieved.
          >
          > I hope these two examples serve to illustrate the ambiguity or
          inconsistency
          > of the use of the term "XSL" in current W3C documents. I could, quite
          > possibly, go on at length about how the inconsistency plays out in various
          > W3C documents. Rather, I think it is more important to find a solution
          that
          > is logical, clear and consistent.
          >
          > Suffice to say that the inconsistency within XSL/XSL-FO/XSLT specs plays
          out
          > to some degree in other specs too.
          >
          > My suggestion for how to move toward coherence would be:
          >
          > 1. Confine the generic term "XSL" to situations which refer to XSLFO _and_
          > XSLT collectively.
          > 2. When referring to XSL Formatting Objects the abbreviation to be used
          > should be either "XSL-FO" or "XSLFO".
          > 3. When referring to XSL Transformations the abbreviation used should be
          > "XSL-T" or "XSLT".
          > 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.
          > 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>.
          >
          > I would propose that the W3C Core XML Group (do I have the terminology
          > correct?) review the current inconsistency in terminology across W3C specs
          > currently in draft or under revision and give clear, unambiguous guidance
          on
          > which meaning "XSL" has in W3C documents.
          >
          > <side_issue>
          > [ 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? And could
          > another very short "XSL" REC indicate that XSL version 1.0 subsumes the
          XSLT
          > REC of November 1999 and the XSL-FO REC, currently at CR stage? Then when
          > XSLT 1.1 is finalised "XSL 1.1" could be defined as "XSL-FO 1.0" plus
          "XSLT
          > 1.1"? Just a thought. :) ]
          > </side_issue>
          >
          > Consistent usage of the term "XSL" is desirable. With the current fluidity
          of
          > a XSL-FO CR and an XSLT 1.1 WD there is an early opportunity for W3C to
          > introduce consistency where hitherto inconsistent and confusing usage of
          the
          > term "XSL" has been rather too visible.
          >
          > *** Re-edited quote ends ***
          >
          > Returning to Robert's question about the "fo" namespace and the confusion
          > that that term caused him - If my suggestions were adopted we would refer
          to
          > that as the XSL-FO namespace with, in my view, much less ambiguity than a
          > supposed but essentially spurious "XSL namespace".
          >
          > Sorry, to those for which this is pretty hard going. You need to be fairly
          > familiar with how the specs use the terms to see that there is a problem.
          And
          > perhaps more familiar to diagnose it and suggest a (hopefully coherent)
          > remedy.
          >
          > I hope that the XSL-editors wil prove responsive to these suggestions. It
          > would make teaching some parts of XSL/XSL-FO/XSLT to relative beginners
          just
          > a little bit easier if the "standard" terms were used consistently in the
          > definitive documents.
          >
          > Andrew Watt
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > XSL-FO-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          >
        • AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
          In a message dated 17/01/01 00:35:13 GMT Standard Time, r_diblasi@hotmail.com ... Robert, I agree it would be better to break code early rather than late. But
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 17, 2001
            In a message dated 17/01/01 00:35:13 GMT Standard Time, r_diblasi@...
            writes:

            > I have to say that you have hit the nail firmly on the head and
            > Chris's observation is most likely the cause of the problem....
            >
            > I think you proposal is right on the mark ....but of course the real
            > world maybe harsh on this suggestion ......it would break a lot of
            > code ...better to break early than late......

            Robert, I agree it would be better to break code early rather than late. But
            the amount of code which would be broken would, I think, be much less than
            you imagine.

            I am not proposing that the "namespace" be changed.

            When we humans see e.g. <xsl:template> that is what we think.

            However when an XSLT processor see <xsl:template> it actually "thinks" ...
            sorry for the anthropomorphism ... it actually thinks
            <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform:template>.

            What I am suggesting would leave the XSLT processor (or XSL Formatter) seeing
            exactly the same.

            I am only proposing that we rationalise the namespace _prefix_ ... in the
            above example "xsl" ... to "xslt".

            The namespace URI is not changed, under my proposals.

            The primary change would be for someone typing code. The namespace prefix
            "xsl" or "fo" is simply a convenience to stop us having to type
            <www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format:root>. To type <fo:root> is much more convenient.
            If my suggestions were implemented we would type <xslfo:root>.

            If you are still uncertain about the difference between namespace prefix and
            namespace URI take a browse through Namespace in XML REC at
            http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/

            I hope that helps.

            Andrew Watt

            > suggestion.....
            > maybe just correct the spec and live the namespace alone....I'm not a
            > fan of this suggestion...but it would make it sooooo much easier to
            > teach others......believe it or not some of use the spec to teach
            > others.......watch out for the sentence in the "xsl-fo spec" :-) were
            > it states that it is not tutorial in nature:
            > "This document is intended for implementors of such XSL
            > processors. Although it can be used as a reference manual for writers
            > of XSL style sheets, it is not tutorial in nature" I think that your
            > logic about the miss use of the term "XSL" would still
            > stand.....Implementors need to understand to......
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.