3 ms·

Counterpoint: most websites are not useful. If we only count useful websites a much higher percentage of them are using XSLT. But useful websites are much less

• bawolff 1y ago
  [Citation needed] Seriously, i doubt this.
  • cyanydeez 1y ago
    I secondly doubt this. Would love a succinct list of "important" websites.
    • troupo 1y ago
      Do Library of Congress and Congress count? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44958929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44958929 It's not for the public to identify these sites. It's for the arrogant Googlers to do a modicum of research
      • bawolff 1y ago
        At first glance the library of congress link appears to be using server side XSLT, which would not be affected by this proposal. The congress one appears to be the first legit example i have seen. At first glance the congress use case does seem like it would be fully covered by CSS [you can attach CSS stylesheets to generic xml documents in a similar fashion to xslt]. Of course someone would have to make that change.
        • troupo 1y ago
          > Of course someone would have to make that change. Of course. And yet none of the people from Google even seem to be aware of > The congress one appears to be the first legit example i have seen. There are more. E.g. podcast RSS feeds are often presented on the web with XSLT: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/231452.rss https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/231452.rss Again, none of the people from Google even seem to be aware of these use cases, and just power through regardless of any concerns.
          • GoblinSlayer 1y ago
            They are easy to understand :) Modern browsers became such bloatware beyond salvation, they start to feel all the tech debt.
          • philipallstar 1y ago
            You're naming Google specifically, when it's not just Google. This seems like a you thing, separate to the actual issue at hand.
            • troupo 1y ago
              Well, it's Google who jumped at the opportunity citing their own counters and stats. Just like they did the last time when they tried to remove confirm/prompt[1] and were surprised to see that their numbers don't paint the full picture, as literally explicitly explained in their own docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpS... You'd think that the devs of the world's most popular browser would have a little more care than just citing some numbers, ignoring all feedback, and moving forward with whatever they want to do? Oh. Speaking, of "not just Google". The question was raised in this meeting: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11146#issuecomment-2759059949 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11146#issuecomment-275... Guess what. --- start quote --- dan: even if the data were accurate, not enough zeros for the usage to be low enough. brian: I'm guessing people will have objections... people do use it and some like it --- end quote --- [1] See, e.g. https://gomakethings.com/google-vs.-the-web/ https://gomakethings.com/google-vs.-the-web/
          • bawolff 1y ago
            > Of course. And yet none of the people from Google even seem to be aware of I don't see any reason to assume that. I don't think anyone from google is claiming the literal number of sites is 0, just that it is insignificant. I am very sure the people at google are aware of the rss feed usage. Don't confuse people disagreeing with you with people not understanding you.
            • 1y ago
  • const_cast 1y ago
    A lot of very old SPA like heavy applications use XSLT. Basically, enterprise web applications (not websites) that predate fetch, rest, and targeted or still target Internet Explorer 5/6. There was a time where the standard way to build a highly interactive SPA was using SOAP services on the backend combined with iframes on the front end that executed XSLT in the background to update the DOM. Obviously such an approach is extremely out of date and you won't find it on any websites you use. But, a lot of critical enterprise software was built this way and is kind of stuck like this.
    • bawolff 1y ago
      > Internet Explorer 5/6 Afaik IE 5 did not support XSLT. It supported a proprietary similar language that was different. I think IE6 was first version to support XSLT. I feel like when i see enterprise xslt a lot of it is serverside.
    • GoblinSlayer 1y ago
      I ran xslt in foreground, it was fast enough for that even on celeron and 128mb RAM. Imagine running modern web 2.0 on 128mb RAM.