Martin Stricker wrote at 20 Mar 2001 +0100:
 > I'm ok with the name XSLT, I just would like to have a consistent way
 > doing the XSL names: Either XSL-T and XSL-FO (preferred) or XSLT and
 > XSLFO. Having XSLT and XSL-FO is weird. ;-))

Neither XSL-FO nor XSLFO are used in the XSL CR.  "xsl-fo" appears
only as the first five characters of "xsl-following", "xsl-footnote",
and "xsl-footnote-separator".  XSLFO doesn't appear at all.

"XSL-FO" (and any variation on it that you've seen) is merely a term
that has come into common use but that has no standing in the XSL CR.
>From the point of view of the XSL CR, the formatting process is not a
separable portion of XSL, so the CR never uses the term.

Regards,


Tony Graham
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Graham                           mailto:tony.graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sun Microsystems Ireland Ltd                       Phone: +353 1 8199708
Hamilton House, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3            x(70)19708

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