[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
RE: [xsl] Anybody know when "transform" became the term for the type ofthing XSLT does?
Subject: RE: [xsl] Anybody know when "transform" became the term for the type ofthing XSLT does?|
From: "Andrew Welch" <ajwelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:38:15 +0100
> Andrew Welch wrote:
> > I bet everyone still uses <xsl:stylesheet> over <xsl:transform> (I
> > know I do...even though it makes far more sense to use the latter!)
> You could use <xsl:transform> for a data-centric stylesheet(?) and
> <xsl:stylesheet> for a stylesheet that creates an XSL-FO document or
> something similar.
> This would indicate what kind of stylesheet it is; but it may confuse
> many people, that don't know the alias <xsl:transform>.
I think 'stylesheet' is the wrong term all round really. Even when you
are creating an FO document you are still transforming one xml document
into another - the result happens to be a stylesheet but the process is
still an XML transformation.
I guess it's just an historical thing that's stuck when we use
xsl:stylesheet and call them stylesheets.
A question: when referring to an XSLT file, is there any other term to
use than 'stylesheet' that's more accurate?