231–240 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/... It is actively used today.
Fair enough. Its use to denote other scripting languages was phased out.
A few things to note: - This isn't Chrome doing this unilaterally. https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523 shows that representatives from every browser are supportive and there have been discussions about this in standards meetings: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11146#issuecomment-275... - You can see from the WHATNOT meeting agenda that it was a Mozilla engineer who brought it up last time. - Opening a…
So if in reading the two threads correctly essentially Google asked for feedback, essentially all the feedback said "no, please don't". And they said "thanks for the feedback, we're gonna do it any way!"? The other suggestions ignored seemed to be "if this is about security, then fund the OSS, project. Or swap to a newer safer library, or pull it into the JS sandbox and ensure support is maintained." Which were all m…
It would be incredible if we could pull it into the javascript/wasm sandbox and get xslt 3.0 support. The best of both worlds, at the cost of a performance hit on those pages, but not a terrible cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Former Mozilla and Google (Chrome team specifically) dev here. The way I see what you're saying is: Representatives from Chrome/Blink, Safari/Webkit, and Firefox/Gecko are all supportive of removing XSLT from the web platform, regardless of whether it's still being used. It's okay because someone from Mozilla brought it up. Out of those three projects, two are notoriously under-resourced, and one is notorious for con…
Another way to look at this is: Billions of people use the web every day. Should the 99.99% of them be vulnerable to XSLT security bugs for the other 0.01%?
Applied to each individually it seems to make sense. However the aggregate effect is kill off a substantial portion of the web.
In fact, it's an argument to never add a new web technology: Should 100% of web users be made vulnerable to bugs in a new technology that 0% of the people are currently using?
Plus it's a false dichotomy. They could instead address XSLT security... e.g., as various people have suggested, by building in the XSLT polyfill they are suggesting all the XSLT pages start using as an alternative.
A few things to note: - This isn't Chrome doing this unilaterally. https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523 shows that representatives from every browser are supportive and there have been discussions about this in standards meetings: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11146#issuecomment-275... - You can see from the WHATNOT meeting agenda that it was a Mozilla engineer who brought it up last time. - Opening a…
Also, https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523 (Should we remove XSLT from the web platform?) is not a request for community feedback. It's an issue open on the HTML spec for the HTML spec maintainers to consider. It was opened by a Chrome engineer after at least two meetings where a Mozilla engineer raised the topic, and where there was apparently vendor support for it. This is happening after some serious exploi…
[1] https://blog.startifact.com/posts/xee/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? I mainly see official government documents as annoying PDFs. Thankfully someone had the bright idea to turn the national law's text into a proper webpage and not use an image-like format for that. (I think regional governments also publish laws as PDF though.) Double checking now, yes: that's definitely HTML and not a transformed XML Which government or governmental organizations are you talking about?
Yes, PDF documents which are generated using XSL-FO (XSL Formatting Objects) from an xml source document
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523 (Should we remove XSLT from the web platform?) is not a request for community feedback. It's an issue open on the HTML spec for the HTML spec maintainers to consider. It was opened by a Chrome engineer after at least two meetings where a Mozilla engineer raised the topic, and where there was apparently vendor support for it. This is happening after some serious exploi…
I think this post is useful where the thread author proposed some solutions to the people affected: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-318... The main thing that seems unaddressed is the UX if a user opens a direct link to an XML file and will now just see tag soup instead of the intended rendering. I think this could be addressed by introducing a processing instruction that browsers would inter…
HTTP has already had this since the 90s. Clients send the Accept HTTP header indicating which format they want and servers can respond with alternative representations. You can already respond with HTML for browsers and XML for other clients today. You don’t need the browser to know how to do the transformation.
Oh hey, that thing happened that one could easily see was going to happen [0]. The writing was on the wall for XSL as soon as the browsers tore out FTP support: their desire to minimize attack surface trumps any tendency to leave well enough alone. I wonder what the next step of removing less-popular features will be. Probably the SMIL attributes in favor of CSS for SVG animations, they've been grumbling about those…
Which is miles better than having to having to use calcs for CSS animation timing which requires a kludge of CSS variables/etc to keep track of when something begins/ends time-wise, if wanting to avoid requiring Javascript. And some years ago Firefox IIRC didn't even support time-based calcs.
When Chromium announced the intent to deprecate SMIL a decade back (before relenting) it was far too early to consider that given CSS at that time lacked much of what SMIL allowed for (including motion along a path and SVG attribute value animations, which saw CSS support later). It also set off a chain of articles and never-again updated notes warning about SMIL, which just added to confusion. I remember even an LLM mistakenly believing SMIL was still deprecated in Chromium.
I have no opinion on this, just sharing my one-and-only XSLT story. My first job in software was as a software test development intern at a ~500 employee non-profit, in about 2008 when I was about 19 or 20 years old. Writing software to test software. One of my tasks during the 2 years I worked there was to write documentation for their XML test data format. The test data was written in XML documents, then run throug…
At the end of the (very long) process, I just hard-coded the reference request XML given by the particularly problematic endpoints, put some regex replacements behind it, and called it a day.
I don't get the people complaining that they need it on their low-power microcontrollers yet instead of using an XSLT library they'd rather pull in Chromium. With how bloated browsers are right now, good riddance IMO