xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pascal Sancho <pascal.san...@takoma.fr>
Subject Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:31:16 GMT

as you said, XSL is separated in 2 things:
 - XML transformation (namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform)
 - Formating objects (namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format)

using the same name for this 2 separate things is quite unclear, so in
FOP lists we speak about either XSLT (about the former), or XSL-FO
(about the latter).

It is mainly for convenience that we use here these 2 short words: XSLT

What FOP engine takes as input is XSL-FO (tags <fo:xxx>), so it is
important to understand the difference between the 2 above.

Why XSL project splitted into 2 subprojects is out of topic here.

Le 31/08/2011 06:09, Christopher R. Maden a écrit :
> On 08/30/2011 11:41 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> We may be applying different ontological models here.
> That does seem likely, since...
>> I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related.
>> I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related.
>> For me, FO related != XSL related.
> The XSL-FO language is defined in <URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/ >,
> “Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL).”  Early drafts did not even
> separate the transformation and formatting parts of XSL, but since the
> transformation was so useful on its own, it was spun out.  However,
> formatting was the primary goal of the XSL work.  IOW, FO *is* XSL. XSLT
> is a by-product, but is often (mistakenly) called “XSL.”
>> Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly
>> covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of
>> it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality.
> I concur with that... it is now clear that the only confusion is whether
> or not FO is part of XSL; I hope the title of the W3C Recommendation
> defining it clarifies that.
> [Argumentum ad verecundiam: I was on the W3C XSL Working Group from its
> inception in 1997 until 2002.]
> It is also quite clear at <URL:
> http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/#introduction > that XSL-FO is
> in scope for that list.
> I wouldn’t and can’t stop anyone from posting questions about FO here.
> However, I will try, in my answers, to make clear whether their
> questions pertain to FOP behavior or whether they would have the same
> questions regardless of which tool they were using.
> ~Chris


To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org

View raw message