Hi, as you said, XSL is separated in 2 things: - XML transformation (namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform) - Formating objects (namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format)
using the same name for this 2 separate things is quite unclear, so in FOP lists we speak about either XSLT (about the former), or XSL-FO (about the latter). It is mainly for convenience that we use here these 2 short words: XSLT Vs XSL-FO What FOP engine takes as input is XSL-FO (tags <fo:xxx>), so it is important to understand the difference between the 2 above. Why XSL project splitted into 2 subprojects is out of topic here. Le 31/08/2011 06:09, Christopher R. Maden a écrit : > On 08/30/2011 11:41 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> We may be applying different ontological models here. > > That does seem likely, since... > >> I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. >> >> I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. >> >> For me, FO related != XSL related. > > The XSL-FO language is defined in <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/ >, > “Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL).” Early drafts did not even > separate the transformation and formatting parts of XSL, but since the > transformation was so useful on its own, it was spun out. However, > formatting was the primary goal of the XSL work. IOW, FO *is* XSL. XSLT > is a by-product, but is often (mistakenly) called “XSL.” > >> Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly >> covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of >> it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. > > I concur with that... it is now clear that the only confusion is whether > or not FO is part of XSL; I hope the title of the W3C Recommendation > defining it clarifies that. > > [Argumentum ad verecundiam: I was on the W3C XSL Working Group from its > inception in 1997 until 2002.] > > It is also quite clear at <URL: > http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/#introduction > that XSL-FO is > in scope for that list. > > I wouldn’t and can’t stop anyone from posting questions about FO here. > However, I will try, in my answers, to make clear whether their > questions pertain to FOP behavior or whether they would have the same > questions regardless of which tool they were using. > > ~Chris -- Pascal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
