Re: XSL and related specifications

Norm Tovey-Walsh <[email protected]> Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:49:36 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.text.xml.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

> Is that vocabulary XSL-FO? It's a bit confusing.

Yes. The history is a bit confusing. Originally, the “Extensible Style
Language” was a transformation part and an XML vocabulary for defining
layout. Having it in one specification reflects the original vision of
XSL which was as a way of transforming XML into something you could
print.

The transformation part (XSLT) went on to be wildly popular for a great
many things other than page layout and the communities interested in the
transformation part and the page layout part diverged. (There was always
some overlap but there were also clearly groups interested in only one
half or the other.)

I believe the last XSL FO recommendation is 2.0:

  https://www.w3.org/TR/xslfo20/

Work continued for a while after that in the Print and Page Layout
Community Group

  https://www.w3.org/community/ppl/

But I see that the W3C recently closed it. :-(

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norm Tovey-Walsh <[email protected]>
https://norm.tovey-walsh.com/

> Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year
> ago.--Bernard Berenson

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 227 B)