4 ms·

They should switch, then. This notion that we can't peal away browser spec complexity because it will break some websites is the same reason ActiveX continued t

They should switch, then. This notion that we can't peal away browser spec complexity because it will break some websites is the same reason ActiveX continued to wreck havoc long after it should have. I found multiple security vulnerabilities in XSLT back in my pen-testing days, and even if it didn't increase the threat surface, browser spec needs to be simplified anyway.

troupo 1y ago
> This notion that we can't peal away browser spec complexity They are not peeling away browser complexity. They revel in browser complexity. They gleefuly make browser as complex as possible.... as long as their promotions depend on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989576
- kstrauser 1y ago
  None of those could be implemented in JavaScript or WASM. XSLT could. Say what you will about the popularity of each of them, but they can't exist without browser implementations. XSLT can be replaced with a polyfill.
  - youngtaff 1y ago
    > XSLT can be replaced with a polyfill Show me how a polyfill allows me to type https://example.com/rss.xml https://example.com/rss.xml in the URL bar and have it transformed to HTML in the browser?
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to read an RSS feed directly, although I subscribe to a lot of them. Is that a popular reading method?
      - troupo 1y ago
        It's a popular presentation format for RSS feeds. And you don't need to somehow attach a Javascript polyfill to an XML feed to make it readable for humans
      - em-bee 1y ago
        i do that frequently, especially on podcast feeds where i am not actually interested in the rss entries but in the linked audio files. the rss reader doesn't play those well.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      how do you do that with anything else? firefox doesn't load the file at all, but loads it into an external tool which (gasp!) is chrome. chrome displays the raw xml.

troupo 1y ago

> This notion that we can't peal away browser spec complexity They are not peeling away browser complexity. They revel in browser complexity. They gleefuly make browser as complex as possible.... as long as their promotions depend on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989576 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989576

kstrauser 1y ago
None of those could be implemented in JavaScript or WASM. XSLT could. Say what you will about the popularity of each of them, but they can't exist without browser implementations. XSLT can be replaced with a polyfill.
- youngtaff 1y ago
  > XSLT can be replaced with a polyfill Show me how a polyfill allows me to type https://example.com/rss.xml https://example.com/rss.xml in the URL bar and have it transformed to HTML in the browser?
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to read an RSS feed directly, although I subscribe to a lot of them. Is that a popular reading method?
    - troupo 1y ago
      It's a popular presentation format for RSS feeds. And you don't need to somehow attach a Javascript polyfill to an XML feed to make it readable for humans
    - em-bee 1y ago
      i do that frequently, especially on podcast feeds where i am not actually interested in the rss entries but in the linked audio files. the rss reader doesn't play those well.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    how do you do that with anything else? firefox doesn't load the file at all, but loads it into an external tool which (gasp!) is chrome. chrome displays the raw xml.