←back to thread

Google is killing the open web, part 2

(wok.oblomov.eu)
418 points akagusu | 1 comments | 17 Nov 25 15:41 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[17 Nov 25 16:31 UTC] No.45955140[source]▶
I have yet to read an article complaining about XSLT deprecation from someone who can explain why they actually used it and why it’s important to them.

> I will keep using XSLT, and in fact will look for new opportunities to rely on it.

This is the closest I’ve seen, but it’s not an explanation of why it was important before the deprecation. It’s a declaration that they’re using it as an act of rebellion.

replies(10): >>45955238 #>>45955283 #>>45955351 #>>45955795 #>>45955805 #>>45955821 #>>45956141 #>>45956722 #>>45956976 #>>45958239 #
jerf ◴[17 Nov 25 16:42 UTC] No.45955283[source]▶
What a horrible technology to wrap around your neck for rebellion's sake. XSLT didn't succeed because it's fundamentally terrible and was a bad idea from the very beginning.

But I suppose forcing one's self to use XSLT just to spite Google would constitute its own punishment.

replies(1): >>45960734 #
1. veeti ◴[18 Nov 25 02:28 UTC] No.45960734[source]▶
It has nothing to do with the specifics of the technology. As a consumer of online content, I don't care one bit if it is styled with XSLT or CSS (though as a developer my condolences are with the author, if they worked with XSLT).

However, what I do care about is that it _remains viewable and usable_. Imagine if Microsoft Word one day decided you couldn't open .doc or .rtf files from the early 2000's? The browser vendors have decided that the web is now an application delivery platform where developers must polyfill backwards compatibility, past documents be damned.

And just as the article drives the point home, it doesn't have to be this way. They could just provide the polyfill within the browser, negating any purported security issues with ancient XML libraries.