←back to thread

418 points akagusu | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andsoitis ◴[] No.45954687[source]
I don’t know. The author makes some arguments I could get entertain and get behind, but they also enumerate the immense complexity that they want web browsers to support (incl. Gopher).

Whether or not Google deprecating XSLT is a “political” decision (in authors words), I don’t know that I know for sure, but I can imagine running the Chrome project and steering for more simplicity.

replies(5): >>45954991 #>>45955005 #>>45955021 #>>45955842 #>>45958065 #
coldpie ◴[] No.45955005[source]
The drama around the XSLT stuff is ridiculous. It's a dead format that no one uses[1], no one will miss, no one wants to maintain, and that provides significant complexity and attack surface. It's unambiguously the right thing to do to remove it. No one who actually works in the web space disagrees.

Yes, it's a problem that Chrome has too much market share, but XSLT's removal isn't a good demonstration of that.

[1] Yes, I already know about your one European law example that you only found out exists because of this drama.

replies(5): >>45955125 #>>45955129 #>>45955138 #>>45955385 #>>45958291 #
basscomm ◴[] No.45958291[source]
I've been running a small hobby site using XML and XSLT for the last five or so years, but Google refused to index it because Googlebot doesn't execute XSLT. I can't be the only one, but good luck Googling it
replies(1): >>45967521 #
1. andsoitis ◴[] No.45967521[source]
> but good luck Googling it

Link?

replies(1): >>45968200 #
2. basscomm ◴[] No.45968200[source]
https://wyrm.org/index.xml

I migrated to an Org-mode-based workflow a couple of weeks ago because I can see the writing on the wall, but most of the XML and XSLT files are still in place because cool URIs don't change(1).

Who knows how many other XML and XSLT-based sites still exist on the internet because Google refuses to index that content

1. https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI