←back to thread

418 points akagusu | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] 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 #
ndiddy ◴[] No.45955805[source]
My guess is that a lot of the controversy is simply because this is one of the first times that a major web feature has been removed from the web standards. For the past 20+ years, people have grown to expect that any page they make will remain viewable indefinitely. It doesn't matter that most people don't like XSLT, or that barely any sites use it. Removing XSLT does break some websites and that violates their expectation, so they get mad at it reflexively.

As someone who's interested in sustainable open source development, I also find the circumstances around the deprecation to be interesting and worth talking about. The XSLT implementation used by all the browsers is a 25 year old C library whose maintainer recently resigned due to having to constantly deal with security bugs reported by large companies who don't provide any financial contribution or meaningful assistance to the project. It seems like the browser vendors were fine with the status quo of having XSLT support as long as they didn't have to contribute any resources to it. As soon as that free maintenance went away and they were faced with either paying someone to continue maintenance or writing a new XSLT library in a safer language, they weren't willing to pay the market value for what it would cost to do this and decided to drop the feature instead.

replies(1): >>45961272 #
1. rerdavies ◴[] No.45961272[source]
Sounds like EVERYBODY agrees that there isn't sufficient market value then. Even the original maintainer. And the that is indeed why the feature is being dropped: insufficient market value. Happy happy happy!
replies(1): >>45969039 #
2. Capricorn2481 ◴[] No.45969039[source]
I don't think a maintainer refusing to answer spam issues from billion dollar corporations that contributes nothing back is evidence of no value to the maintainer. Unless you think FFmpeg has no market value, who has taken the same stance.