Re: Splitting XSL

Jason Diamond wrote:
> 
> All this would require of the XSL WG is a paragraph stating that section 2 of
> the XSL spec can be referred to as XTL and section 3, XFL. Even if they didn't
> want to do that, there's nothing stopping us from calling them that.

Good point! Do we all agree that the physical organization of the
specification is irrelevant? What we need is for the transformation and
formatting languages to be

 a) separately named
 b) separately conformance tested

And that the combination of the two should be called "XSL."

I am going to suggest that although there are good reasons to ask for them
to be completely separate specifications that instead we will leave that
up to the WG. They know the politics of the situation. If we must have two
different languages both specified in a spec called "XSL" then we can live
with that. It isn't (much) different from the way that the XML
specification details both instance syntax and DTD syntax.
-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
                                               --Faith Whittlesey


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list