←back to thread

Google is killing the open web, part 2

(wok.oblomov.eu)
418 points akagusu | 4 comments | 17 Nov 25 15:41 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
nwellnhof ◴[17 Nov 25 16:33 UTC] No.45955183[source]▶
Removing XSLT from browsers was long overdue and I'm saying that as ex-maintainer of libxslt who probably triggered (not caused) this removal. What's more interesting is that Chromium plans to switch to a Rust-based XML parser. Currently, they seem to favor xml-rs which only implements a subset of XML. So apparently, Google is willing to remove standards-compliant XML support as well. This is a lot more concerning.
replies(11): >>45955239 #>>45955425 #>>45955442 #>>45955667 #>>45955747 #>>45955961 #>>45956057 #>>45957011 #>>45957170 #>>45957880 #>>45977574 #
xmcp123 ◴[17 Nov 25 16:37 UTC] No.45955239[source]▶
It’s interesting to see the casual slide of Google towards almost internet explorer 5.1 style behavior, where standards can just be ignored “because market share”.

Having flashbacks of “<!--[if IE 6]> <script src="fix-ie6.js"></script> <![endif]-->”

replies(4): >>45955346 #>>45955370 #>>45955787 #>>45956032 #
granzymes ◴[17 Nov 25 16:47 UTC] No.45955346[source]▶
The standards body is deprecating XSLT with support from Mozilla and Safari (Mozilla first proposed the removal).

Not sure how you got from that to “Google is ignoring standards”.

replies(5): >>45955574 #>>45955964 #>>45955987 #>>45957993 #>>45965422 #
_heimdall ◴[17 Nov 25 17:48 UTC] No.45955987[source]▶
There's a lot of history behind WhatWG that revolves around XML.

WhatWG is focused on maintaining specs that browsers intend to implement and maintain. When Chrome, Firefox, and Safari agree to remove XSLT that effectively decides for WhatWG's removal of the spec.

I wouldn't put too much weight behind who originally proposed the removal. It's a pretty small world when it comes to web specifications, the discussions likely started between vendors before one decided to propose it.

replies(1): >>45956285 #
NewsaHackO ◴[17 Nov 25 18:19 UTC] No.45956285{3}[source]▶
The issue is you can’t say to put little weight who originally proposed the removal if the other poster is putting all the weight on Google, who didn’t even initially propose it
replies(1): >>45956646 #
_heimdall ◴[17 Nov 25 18:50 UTC] No.45956646{4}[source]▶
I wouldn't put weight on the initial proposer either way. As best I've been able to keep up with the topic, google has been the party leading the charge arguing for the removal. I thought they were also the first to announce their decision, though maybe my timing is off there.
replies(1): >>45957695 #
1. akerl_ ◴[17 Nov 25 20:10 UTC] No.45957695{5}[source]▶
It doesn't seem like much of a charge to be led. The decision appears to have been pretty unanimous.
replies(1): >>45957912 #
2. _heimdall ◴[17 Nov 25 20:28 UTC] No.45957912[source]▶
By browser vendors, you mean? Yes it seems like they were in agreement and many here seem to think that was largely driven by google though that's speculation.

Users and web developers seemed much less on board though[1][2], enough that Google referenced that in their announcement.

[1] https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11578 [2] https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523

replies(1): >>45957954 #
3. akerl_ ◴[17 Nov 25 20:32 UTC] No.45957954[source]▶
Yes, that's what I mean. In this comment tree, you've said:

> google has been the party leading the charge arguing for the removal.

and

> many here seem to think that was largely driven by google though that's speculation

I'm saying that I don't see any evidence that this was "driven by google". All the evidence I see is that Google, Mozilla, and Apple were all pretty immediately in agreement that removing XSLT was the move they all wanted to make.

You're telling us that we shouldn't think too hard about the fact that a Mozilla staffer opened the request for removal, and that we should notice that Google "led the charge". It would be interesting if somebody could back that up with something besides vibes, because I don't even see how there was a charge to lead. Among the groups that agreed, that agreement appears to have been quick and unanimous.

replies(1): >>45959569 #
4. _heimdall ◴[17 Nov 25 23:17 UTC] No.45959569{3}[source]▶
In the github issues I have followed, including those linked above, I primarily saw Google engineers arguing for removing XSLT from the spec. I'm not saying they are the sole architects of the spec removal, and I'm not claiming to have seen all related discussions.

I am sharing my view, though, that Google engineers have been the majority share of browser engineer comments I've seen arguing for removing XSLT.