Re: [xsl] xsl 2.0?

["G. T. Stresen-Reuter" <tedmasterweb@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting and kind of sorry to hear it.

On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:45 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Very small. We were down to three people in Working Group teleconference
> calls, and that was on a good day.
>
> The answer is probably for people to invest in CSS, not XSL-FO, these
> days.

I use XSL for transforming XML into a variety of other formats (usually XML
but sometimes plain text or CSV). Why do you say people should be investing in
CSS, not XSL-FO? How is this related to XSL?

Sorry for the ignorance, but I am clearly missing something important here.

Thanks in advance.

Ted Stresen-Reuter