> For example, instead of this:


> Write this:

> Comments?


With the former anyone (XML aware enough to be looking at all) will
instantly recognise the thing as XSLT, with the latter, almost everyone
will have to stop and think about equivalence of namespace prefixes, and
of the equivalence between the styleseet and transform local names.
Why introduce that cognitive burden?

The question of when to use xsl:transform and when to use xsl:stylesheet
comes up from time to time on xsl-list, and the answer I always give is
just to use a simple rule:  always use xsl:stylesheet


Personally I always use xsl:stylesheet as the name of the top level
element and call the thing a "stylesheet" even if it's doing stuff not
normally associated with styling (such as generating C or C# or whatever
we are doing at the moment). English isn't such a regular language that
I'd worry too much about minor idiosyncrasies such as the fact that
something called a stylesheet isn't a sheet and isn't related to
styling:-)



David

________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________