On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 11:04 +0000, Andrew Welch wrote:
> > The XSL 2.0 requirements document is at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslfo20-req/
> 
> I've noticed that in the recent announcement emails, and here, that
> it's "XSL 2.0" in the title, but then "XSL FO" everywhere else..
> including the url.  Even in the abstract is says "This is the
> requirements document for XSL-FO and not for XSLT", which would be
> obvious if was just called "XSL-FO" all the time....
> 
> Is there a reason why it can't be referred to as "XSL-FO" whenever you
> mean XSL-FO?

As Dave Pawson has commented, the name is historical.

There's some support within the XSL-FO task force, a subgroup of the
XSL Working Group, for renaming it to XSL-FO more formally, but
I don't think we've taken the issue up with the XSL Working Group.

Personally I agree with you, it's confusing.  If XSLT was formally
called XSL - Transformations, and XSL-FO was called XSL-Formatting,
the relationship would be much clearer, but I think "XSLT" is also
rather entrenched.

We put the clarification into the requirements because we know people
are confused: a requirements document isn't the place to announce
a change of name, though, of course.

Maybe with XSL-FO 2.0 we should just use a completely different
name, like "Hyacinth" or "Rupert"... :-)

At any rate it's good to see interest in the spec!

Thanks,

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org