I've used it in an unfinished website where all data was stored in a single XML file and all markup was stored in a single XSLT file. A CGI one-liner then made path info available to XSLT, and routing (multiple pages) was achieved by doing string tests inside of the XSLT template.
Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
11–20 of 352 posts
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#12Destroying the open web instead of advocating to fix one of the better underutilized browser technologies for a more Profitable Google. I will not forget the name Mason Freed, destroyer of open collaborative technology.
They all agreed because XSLT is extremely unpopular and worse than JS in every way. Performance/bloat? Worse. Security? MUCH worse. Language design? Unimaginably worse.
EDIT: I wrote thousands of lines of XSLT circa 2005. I'm grateful that I'll never do that again.
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#13> The Firefox[^0] and WebKit[^1] projects have also indicated plans to remove XSLT from their browser engines.
[^0]: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1287#i...
[^1]: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-314...
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#14Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#15Good, XSLT was crap. I wrote an RSS feed XSLT template. Worst dev experience ever. No one is/was using XSLT. Removing unused code is a win for browsers. Every anti bloat HNer should be cheering
I am not really a functional programming guy. But XSLT is a really cool application of functional programming for data munging, and I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t used it enough for it to click.
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#16Destroying the open web instead of advocating to fix one of the better underutilized browser technologies for a more Profitable Google. I will not forget the name Mason Freed, destroyer of open collaborative technology.
Blame Apple and Mozilla, too, then. They all agreed to remove it. They all agreed because XSLT is extremely unpopular and worse than JS in every way. Performance/bloat? Worse. Security? MUCH worse. Language design? Unimaginably worse. EDIT: I wrote thousands of lines of XSLT circa 2005. I'm grateful that I'll never do that again.
XSLT is still a great way of easily transforming xml-like documents. It's orders of magnitude more concise than transforming using Javascript or other general programming languages. And people are actively re-inventing XSLT for JSON (see `jq`).
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#17TIL: Chrome supports XSLT. Good riddance I guess - it and most of the tech from the "XML era" was needlessly overcomplicated.
It's a loss, if you ask me, to remove it from client-side, but it's one I worked through years ago.
It's still really useful on the server side for document transformation.
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#18Curious: have any of you used XSLT in production lately?
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#19Destroying the open web instead of advocating to fix one of the better underutilized browser technologies for a more Profitable Google. I will not forget the name Mason Freed, destroyer of open collaborative technology.
Blame Apple and Mozilla, too, then. They all agreed to remove it. They all agreed because XSLT is extremely unpopular and worse than JS in every way. Performance/bloat? Worse. Security? MUCH worse. Language design? Unimaginably worse. EDIT: I wrote thousands of lines of XSLT circa 2005. I'm grateful that I'll never do that again.
Re: Removing XSLT for a more secure browser
#20Destroying the open web instead of advocating to fix one of the better underutilized browser technologies for a more Profitable Google. I will not forget the name Mason Freed, destroyer of open collaborative technology.
Didn't this effort start with Mozilla and not Google? I think you will in fact forget the name Mason Freed, just like most of us forgot about XSLT.
Maybe round one of it like ten years ago did? From what I understand, it's a Google employee who opened the "Hey, I want to get rid of this and have no plans to provide a zero-effort-for-users replacement." Github Issue a few months back.