Live data from Hacker News

"Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

github.com

31–40 of 559 posts

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#31
post #19

> @whatwg whatwg locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Too heated? Looked pretty civil and reasonable to me. Would it be ridiculous to suggest that the tolerance for heat might depend on how commenters are aligned with respect to a particular vendor?

There was a discussion they opened to "gather community feedback" just three weeks ago. That one did get heated: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523

Google ignored everything, pushed on with the removal, and now pre-emptively closed this discussion, too

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#32
I had no idea what XSLT even was until today. Reading the submission, the thread linked by u/troupo below, and Wikipedia, I find that it's apparently used in RSS parsing by browsers, because RSS is XML and then XSLT is "originally designed for transforming XML documents into other XML documents" so it can turn the XML feed into an HTML page

I agree RSS parsing is nice to have built into browsers. (Just like FTP support, that I genuinely miss in Firefox nowadays, but allegedly usage was too low to warrant the maintenance.) I also don't really understand the complaint from the Chrome people that are proposing it: "it's too complex, high-profile bugs, here's a polyfill you can use". Okay, why not stuff that polyfill into the browser then? Then it's already inside the javascript sandbox that you need to stay secure anyway, and everything just stays working as it was. Replacing some C++ code sounds like a win for safety any day of the week

On the other hand, I don't normally view RSS feeds manually. They're something a feed parser (in my case: Blogtrottr and Antennapod) would work with. I can also read the XML if there is a reason for me to ever look at that for some reason, or the server can transform the RSS XML into XHTML with the same XSLT code right? If it's somehow a big deal to maintain, and RSS is the only thing that uses it, I'm also not sure how big a deal it is to have people install an extension if they view RSS feeds regularly on sites where the server can do no HTML render of that information. It's essentially the same solution as if Chrome would put the polyfill inside the browser: the browser transforms the XML document inside of the JS sandbox

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#33
This would be sad, but I think it's sadder that we didn't spend more effort integrating more modern XSLT. It was painful to use _but_ if it had a few revisions in the browser I think it would have been a massive contender to things like React.

XML was unfairly demonized for the baggage that IBM and other enterprise orgs tied to it, but the standard itself was frigging amazing and powerful.

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#35

This proposal seems to be aimed at removing native support in favor of a WASM-based polyfill (like PDF.js, I guess) which seems reasonable? Google definitely throws its weight around too much w.r.t. to web standards, but this doesn't seem too bad. Web specifications are huge and complex so trying to size down a little bit while maintaining support for existing sites is okay IMO.

[deleted]

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#36
post #21
post #2

Despite rather heated discussion just three weeks they started just two weeks prior https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523

If it's a security issue, shouldn't the browsers just replace C++ code with the JS or WASM polyfill themselves?

I also wondered about that. They probably don't want to do that because of maintaining, fixing and allocating resources to it then.

Probably a browser extension on the user side can do the same job if an XSLT relying page cannot be updated.

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#37

This proposal seems to be aimed at removing native support in favor of a WASM-based polyfill (like PDF.js, I guess) which seems reasonable? Google definitely throws its weight around too much w.r.t. to web standards, but this doesn't seem too bad. Web specifications are huge and complex so trying to size down a little bit while maintaining support for existing sites is okay IMO.

Last I checked, it’s a polyfill that Chrome won’t default include - they’re just saying that they’d have a polyfill in JS and it’s on site authors to use.

That breaks old unmaintained but still valuable sites.

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#38
post #4

i thought that HTML spec is immutable.

The HTML spec is actually constantly evolving. New features like the dialog element [0] and popover [1] were added every year. But removing something from the spec is very rare, if it ever happened before.

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...

[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#39

This proposal seems to be aimed at removing native support in favor of a WASM-based polyfill (like PDF.js, I guess) which seems reasonable? Google definitely throws its weight around too much w.r.t. to web standards, but this doesn't seem too bad. Web specifications are huge and complex so trying to size down a little bit while maintaining support for existing sites is okay IMO.

The polyfills are something devs have to include and use. It means all the pages that cannot be updated will be broken.

Re: "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec"

#40
Do we know Webkit, KHTML and Gecko's stand on this?

I know this is for security reason but why not update the XSLT implementation instead. And if feature that aren't used get dropped, they might as well do it all in one good. I am sure lots of HTML spec aren't even used.

Post reply on HN