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

Re: [XSL-FO] Re: A need for consistency and precision when referring to "XSL"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jan 17, 2001
      In a message dated 17/01/01 00:35:13 GMT Standard Time, r_diblasi@...

      > 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

      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

      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.