logoalt Hacker News

coldpieyesterday at 4:18 PM5 repliesview on HN

The drama around the XSLT stuff is ridiculous. It's a dead format that no one uses[1], no one will miss, no one wants to maintain, and that provides significant complexity and attack surface. It's unambiguously the right thing to do to remove it. No one who actually works in the web space disagrees.

Yes, it's a problem that Chrome has too much market share, but XSLT's removal isn't a good demonstration of that.

[1] Yes, I already know about your one European law example that you only found out exists because of this drama.


Replies

lunar_mycroftyesterday at 4:51 PM

The fact that people didn't realize that a site used XSLT before the recent drama is meaningless. Even as a developer, I don't know how most of the sites I visit work under the hood. Unless I have a reason to go poking around, I would probably never know whether a site used react, solid, svelte, or jquery.

But it ultimately doesn't matter either way. A major selling point/part of the "contract" the web platform has with web developers is backwards compatibility. If you make a web site which only relies on web standards (i.e. not vendor specific features or 3rd party plugins), you can/could expect it to keep working forever. Browser makers choosing to break that "contract" is bad for the internet regardless of how popular XSLT is.

Oh, and as the linked article points out, the attack surface concerns are obviously bad faith. The polyfil means browser makers could choose to sandbox it in a way that would be no less robust than their existing JS runtime.

show 2 replies
basscommyesterday at 9:06 PM

I've been running a small hobby site using XML and XSLT for the last five or so years, but Google refused to index it because Googlebot doesn't execute XSLT. I can't be the only one, but good luck Googling it

bryanrasmussenyesterday at 4:29 PM

>Yes, I already know about your one European law example

What example is that?

show 1 reply
Analemma_yesterday at 4:29 PM

Another bit of ridiculousness is pinning the removal on Google. Removing XSLT was proposed by Mozilla and unanimously supported with no objections by the rest of the WHATWG. Go blame Mozilla if you want somebody to get mad at, or least blame all the browser vendors equally. This has nothing to do with Chrome’s market share.

show 2 replies
troupoyesterday at 4:30 PM

> It's a dead format that no one uses[1],

This has to be proven by Google (and other browser vendors), not by people coming up with examples. The guy pushing "intent to deprecate" didn't even know about the most popular current usage (displaying podcast RSS feeds) until after posting the issue and until after people started posting examples: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-315...

Meanwhile Google's own document says that's not how you approach deprecation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpS...

Also, "no one uses it" is rich considering that XSLT's usage is 10x the usage of features Google has no trouble shoving into the browser and maintaining. Compare XSLT https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity... with USB https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity... or WebTransport: https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity... or even MIDI (also supported by Firerox) https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity....

XSLT deprecation is a symptom of how browser vendors, and especially Google, couldn't give two shits about the stated purposes of the web.

To quote Rich Harris from the time when Google rushed to remove alert/confirm: "the needs of users and authors (i.e. developers) should be treated as higher priority than those of implementors (i.e. browser vendors), yet the higher priority constituencies are at the mercy of the lower priority ones" https://dev.to/richharris/stay-alert-d

show 2 replies