> You’re now presenting removing XSLT not having received due discussion as if it were the same thing. It’s not. It is. Large complex spec with a potentially

> You’re now presenting removing XSLT not having received due discussion as if it were the same thing. It’s not. It is. Large complex spec with a potentially large attack service, but which is still in use (even though small use, but not enough to justify removal according to very same browser vendors who are not Google, and according to Google's own document)? > then you should be glad that they had lengthy discussions beforehand I'm not glad, because Google shipped them regardless of any concerns from any of the other browser vendors. Oh, they also shipped large currently unused specs without even providing a spec for other browsers to look at (looking at WebTransport). Imagine if that had any CVE entries https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7255 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7255 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1931 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1931 > This makes no sense, SVG is in widespread use. SVG was also sort of languishing in v1 with no interest to update it and make it more usable. But then SVG 2 happened.