3 ms·

This is a fair response to the point: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11582#issuecomment-3215101504 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11582#issuecomm

This is a fair response to the point: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11582#issuecomment-3215101504 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11582#issuecomment-321... Frankly I think this is a tempest in a teapot, and the primary reason people are complaining is because Google is sponsoring the idea, not because it's going to harm users in some tangible way.

fridek 1y ago
I've got to admire Mason's chill in actually giving concrete replies to what are mostly ad-hominem attacks around this issue.
- shortstuffsushi 1y ago
  No kidding, the entire thread seems to be "you don't know what you're doing and you haven't done any research," in the face of responses saying "correct, this is the beginning of the process, where we do the research." Then some random tag on guy presumably after this hit HN "I like that it doesn't have ads," which has literally nothing to do with the issue, lol.
- lelandfe 1y ago
  I dunno, my snarkometer is going off. > Thanks for raising these 6 examples of sites publishing XML files. We can add it to the existing list of 357 sites This feels like an email I'd get from HR. The point of the topic was the ease in finding those 6, not to discuss those 6 specifically. Maybe being direct pisses people off more than this corporate-styled language, though.
  - otterley 1y ago
    I think he's responding to the fact that someone felt the need to create a new issue instead of attaching the information to the existing issue. It makes managing the work more difficult.
    - Arnavion 1y ago
      It's also worth noting that mfreed7 of Chromium (the person who initiated the proposal) is not the one who came up with the 357 number; that was zcorpan of Mozilla ( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-3200690662 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-320... ), so mfreed7 is talking about the list they got from zcorpan.
    - smarx007 1y ago
      The very first issue was locked and limited to collaborators.
  - doctorpangloss 1y ago
    You’re saying a nice guy, who is not obligated to engage and chooses to, is not allowed to mock an intellectually dishonest issue?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
kuschku 1y ago
How is it a fair response? Isn't it desirable to have a format that can be used by machines and humans at the same time? XSLT accomplishes what json-ld and semantic html never managed.
- otterley 1y ago
  The response says that for every provided XML document URL, there is an existing equivalent HTML document URL that accomplishes the same outcome for the end user and that is strongly emphasized by the site's UX. The fact that humans rarely access the XML documents via common browsers is also evident from the available usage metrics. The question of abstract efficiency via reuse is academic. If the XML documents were the ones that users accessed most of the time, or were the only documents available, that might change the analysis. But that isn't the case.
  - kuschku 1y ago
    By that same argument, we could deprecate PDF support, as almost every PDF content on the web has an equivalent and emphasized HTML version. Or we could deprecate support for .txt and .xml in the browser itself, for the same reasons. We obviously don't want that. It's valuable to have support for multiple formats, and it's especially valuable to have a single file that can be used by both machines and humans.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 1y ago
      Metrics show that users frequently access text and PDF files in their browsers. They almost never access XML files, despite the purported benefit you mention. Not everything that has a benefit is accepted by customers. Some stuff just doesn't sell.
      - kuschku 1y ago
        Have you considered that the only users who access XML files might be a) at work (where you won't get telemetry) or b) techies, who also disable metrics? You can't just use the metrics of "what do people who don't know how to disable telemtry use?" to make decisions for everyone.
spankalee 1y ago
Google isn't even "sponsoring" the idea. Mason's just the one who opened these issues and PRs after the meetings. Lots of platform maintainers from various vendors are interested in this. They all have rotting XSLT impelmentations with security holes.

fridek 1y ago

I've got to admire Mason's chill in actually giving concrete replies to what are mostly ad-hominem attacks around this issue.

shortstuffsushi 1y ago
No kidding, the entire thread seems to be "you don't know what you're doing and you haven't done any research," in the face of responses saying "correct, this is the beginning of the process, where we do the research." Then some random tag on guy presumably after this hit HN "I like that it doesn't have ads," which has literally nothing to do with the issue, lol.
lelandfe 1y ago
I dunno, my snarkometer is going off. > Thanks for raising these 6 examples of sites publishing XML files. We can add it to the existing list of 357 sites This feels like an email I'd get from HR. The point of the topic was the ease in finding those 6, not to discuss those 6 specifically. Maybe being direct pisses people off more than this corporate-styled language, though.
- otterley 1y ago
  I think he's responding to the fact that someone felt the need to create a new issue instead of attaching the information to the existing issue. It makes managing the work more difficult.
  - Arnavion 1y ago
    It's also worth noting that mfreed7 of Chromium (the person who initiated the proposal) is not the one who came up with the 357 number; that was zcorpan of Mozilla ( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-3200690662 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-320... ), so mfreed7 is talking about the list they got from zcorpan.
  - smarx007 1y ago
    The very first issue was locked and limited to collaborators.
- doctorpangloss 1y ago
  You’re saying a nice guy, who is not obligated to engage and chooses to, is not allowed to mock an intellectually dishonest issue?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

kuschku 1y ago

How is it a fair response? Isn't it desirable to have a format that can be used by machines and humans at the same time? XSLT accomplishes what json-ld and semantic html never managed.

otterley 1y ago
The response says that for every provided XML document URL, there is an existing equivalent HTML document URL that accomplishes the same outcome for the end user and that is strongly emphasized by the site's UX. The fact that humans rarely access the XML documents via common browsers is also evident from the available usage metrics. The question of abstract efficiency via reuse is academic. If the XML documents were the ones that users accessed most of the time, or were the only documents available, that might change the analysis. But that isn't the case.
- kuschku 1y ago
  By that same argument, we could deprecate PDF support, as almost every PDF content on the web has an equivalent and emphasized HTML version. Or we could deprecate support for .txt and .xml in the browser itself, for the same reasons. We obviously don't want that. It's valuable to have support for multiple formats, and it's especially valuable to have a single file that can be used by both machines and humans.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 1y ago
    Metrics show that users frequently access text and PDF files in their browsers. They almost never access XML files, despite the purported benefit you mention. Not everything that has a benefit is accepted by customers. Some stuff just doesn't sell.
    - kuschku 1y ago
      Have you considered that the only users who access XML files might be a) at work (where you won't get telemetry) or b) techies, who also disable metrics? You can't just use the metrics of "what do people who don't know how to disable telemtry use?" to make decisions for everyone.

spankalee 1y ago

Google isn't even "sponsoring" the idea. Mason's just the one who opened these issues and PRs after the meetings. Lots of platform maintainers from various vendors are interested in this. They all have rotting XSLT impelmentations with security holes.