James Tauber wrote:
> 
> >   filename[.input_doctype][.output_format].xsl
> 
> I like this. Is there any reason to use "." as the delimiter, though?
> 
> I wonder if it might be clearer if a different delimiter was used.

Good point.

Choices are

 single chars:

   "."    standard.xmlspec.html.xsl
   "-"    standard-xmlspec-html.xsl
   "_"    standard_xmlspec_html.xsl 
   "@"    standard@xmlspec@h...
   ...

 more complex char names

  "[]"   standard.[xmlspec][html].xsl
  "{-}"  standard.{xmlspec-html}.xsl
  ...

What are your comments? (please, let's not get too religious about this,
let's come up with real arguments, not personal esthetic reasons only)
Keep in mind that this is not mandating in any way. I was trying to get
your comments out of good practices to allow easier information
interchange.

> For example, the xmlspec to fo xslt I posted yesterday had the filename
> xmlspec-fo.xsl
> 
> I don't really have a strong opinion, it was just my first reaction.

I totally understand. This is why I brought this up: there are not many
xsl stylesheets floating around (yet!), so the early we come up with a
clean pattern for naming them, the more easier is to understand how
things work.

Am I wrong?

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@xxxxxxxxxx>                             Friedrich NX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 Nov 26 13:05:48 1999
X-Mozilla-Status: 0801
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
FCC: /C|/Windows/Profiles/Stefano/Documents/Browser/mail/Sent
Message-ID: <383E779C.9386312C@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 13:05:48 +0100
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: it,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fop-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: request for FOP tests
References: <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.991123230806.1316B-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
		<383BD02E.565E0F25@xxxxxxxxxx>
		<14397.1274.410607.633683@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
		<383D3B3B.16293B0D@xxxxxxxxxx>
		<14397.23486.154623.738764@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
		<383DBD75.8F462362@xxxxxxxxxx> <14397.54145.234929.151509@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> I think so, because I want a replacement for TeX, and without math FOP
> will just be a toy, for scientific publishing. But it may well be that
> MathML can be done as a transformation to SVG

This is a great idea!

Do you think it would be possible to design a MathML -> SVG XSLT
transformation sheet?

In fact, this is what it is: you "style" your math structure using a
graphic format. So you could even have your own math style.

Comments?

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 0009           Friedrich Nietzsche



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list