Re: Can we achieve clarity at W3C re what XSL, XSL-FO and XSLT are?

[AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]

In a message dated 18/03/01 07:47:06 GMT Standard Time, jjc@jclark.com writes:


> AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
>
> > "XSLT is also designed to be used independently of XSL." ... cannot
> > be true if XSL = XSL-FO + XSLT (XSLT cannot be used
> > independently of  "XSL" since XSLT is _part of_ "XSL")
>
> I don't follow your logic here.  I see no contradiction between saying
>
> - XSLT can be used independently of XSL, and
> - XSL is the combination of XSLT and XSL-FO
>
> James


James,

Thanks for your reply. Since you don't take issue with my comments about the 
inappropriateness of the designation "XSL namespace" (meaning the XSL-FO 
namespace) and the incongruity of using "xsl" as the indicative prefix for 
XSLT elements, may I take it that you accept my arguments on those points?

If you accept those arguments about the lack of clarity and consistency can 
you comment on the likelihood that the XSL WG will make progress on that 
matter?

By addressing only one point you move the discussion away from the 
combination of ambiguity and inconsistency in the XSLT 1.1 WD and the XSL-FO 
(aka "XSL") CR. It is the combination of ambiguity and inconsistency in the 
W3C documents on "XSL" which causes problems for those not in the inner 
circle. I can routinely "translate" which meaning of "XSL" I hope/know is 
being used in a particular context. For beginners, this is a nightmare, and 
an avoidable one too.

I am surprised that you can't see the problem with the two statements. Within 
one sentence in the XSLT 1.1 WD you switch from one meaning of "XSL" to 
another. I know what you mean, and that you have switched meanings but can I 
ask you to pause and consider the effect of such semantic gymnastics within a 
single sentence for those outside the cogniscenti?

Such semantic gymnastics if not corrected will, quite avoidably, potentially 
lead us to semantic spaghetti rather than a Semantic Web.

Regards

Andrew Watt