Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 2012-02-08 09:46 +0000, Florent Georges wrote:
Wendell Piez wrote: > "XSL", in fact, properly means the combination of XSLT and > XSL-FO, even if it's also commonly used to mean XSLT without > XSL-FO. Even worse... Some people use it to refer to XSLT (like an "abbreviation" of XSLT, mainly because of the usual extension .xsl I guess). My students tell me the confusion is because of the choice of the namespace prefix in code they've seen ... I am often asked "Then why isn't it <xslt:value-of>?". Of course the very first examples of XSLT were created when XSLT was chapter 2 of XSL. Well, it still is as a reference, but in the first drafts, before it was split off, all of XSLT was described in the body of chapter 2 of XSL. Some people use it to refer to XSL-FO, as the XSL spec actually refers to the XSLT spec, but includes (and is) the spec body for XSL-FO. And I guess some people use it to refer to XSL, but I rarely have the opportunity to speak about XSL as a whole ;-) +1 . . . . . . . . . Ken
|
