RE: xsl:stylesheet vs xsl:transform

Thanks Mike for the answer.. I have the same argument
in mind as Alex explained. I guess we have two syntax
(xsl:stylesheet and xsl:transform) for aesthetical
reasons.. When we wish to use XSLT to add styling
information to XML (lets say producing HTML/CSS or
XSL-FO), then xsl:stylesheet seems right. While when
we use XSLT to do a transformation from XML to another
XML (there is no styling involved) , we may use
xsl:transform ..

But most of the time we use xsl:stylesheet (at least I
do!) ..

Regards,
Mukul

--- Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The XSLT spec says (both 1.0 and 2.0) that
> > xsl:stylesheet and xsl:transform are 100%
> identical.
> > Everything that applies to xsl:stylesheet is
> exactly
> > identical to that applies to xsl:transform .. What
> is
> > the reason for keeping two syntaxes for the same
> > purpose? Is there some technical reason for this,
> or
> > there is some other reason?
> 
> I don't know the details of how this decision was
> originally made, but you
> can be reasonably sure that when a committee decides
> to allow two different
> ways of saying the same thing, it's because they
> spent a long time arguing
> about it and it was getting late in the day and
> no-one wanted to give way
> and there were other more important things on the
> agenda.
> 
> Clearly the difference reflects a difference of view
> about the primary
> purpose of XSLT, whether it is primarily a
> transformation language or
> primarily a stylesheet language.
> 
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
> 
> 


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html