4 ms·

I get the frustration but I don’t believe that’s really accurate. It’s not widely used and modern developers don’t see it as valuable.

by TingPing 11mo ago

righthand 11mo ago
I’m a modern developer and I see it as valuable. Why side with the browser teams and ignoring user feedback? If “modern developers” actually spent time with it, they’d find it valuable. Modern developers are idiots if their constant cry is “just write it in JS”. No idea what’s inaccurate about this. A billion dollar company that has no problem pivoting otherwise, can’t fund open technology “because budgets” is simply a lie.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  The dominant user feedback is the hard statistics on how rarely it's used. You can't trim the space of "users" to just "people who already adopted the technology" in the context of the cost of browser support.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    “Everyone who uses the blink tag agrees it’s critical functionality.”
  - righthand 11mo ago
    Yes excellent way to continue to diminish users of tech you don’t agree with. “The people who actually use it are wrong and don’t matter!”
    - shadowgovt 11mo ago
      I'm not personally in the business of maintaining a browser. But if I were, and I were looking to decrease cost of maintenance, "This entire rendering framework that supports a 0.02% use case" would be an outlier for chopping-block consideration. Not all corner-case features match that combination of cost-to-maintain and adoption (after, what, decades at this point?). We wouldn't be arguing the point if the feature in question were fax machine support, right?
      - righthand 11mo ago
        Yes we would because people still use fax machines. I don’t understand this “everything must be a business metric because it can, therefor if I can whittle any feature as a small minority, I am forever correct and just in destroying said technology. Look at smart and savvy I am.” Totally brain dead.
        dpark 11mo ago
        Are browser manufacturers required to support features forever no matter how low the usage is? Do you still mourn for the loss of Gopher support?
        righthand 11mo ago
        Yes I mourn the loss of Gopher, RSS, XML, etc. Browser developers don’t have to do shit but it’s against the idea of an open web to kill off technology, especially one that’s A PART OF THE HTML STANDARD. You love a closed web. That’s why you’re backing Google and arguing for this. I can’t change that there are so many weak minded “yes daddy Google” people in the world. All I can do is advocate we support many technologies and ideas. The world you are advocating sounds locked down and uninteresting.
        shadowgovt 11mo ago
        Practically speaking, what does "open web" vs. "Closed web" mean in this context? Is "open web" just "maximally complies with the w3c standard?"
        righthand 11mo ago
        Open web means popular browsers supporting a wide range of technologies that institutions, businesses, and people use. Not: popular browsers needle through technologies and tell everyone they know best Does that make sense? Openess on the web isn’t a new term or concept so I’m not sure what’s confusing. It’s certainly not killing off technologies people are using. What is open web to you? “Overpaid Mba at Google says this is best so you better fall in line.”
exasperaited 11mo ago
XSLT in the browser was left fundamentally underdeveloped, which is why it is not really widespread. XSLT in non-browser contexts is absolutely valuable.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  Agreed; as a technology, it's both clever and fun. I learned it right around the time I first touched functional programming in general and it was neat to see how you could build a chain of declarative rules to go from one document to another document. Personally, I don't think we need a dedicated native-implemented browser engine for it. But in general I'm glad the tech exists.

I get the frustration but I don’t believe that’s really accurate. It’s not widely used and modern developers don’t see it as valuable.

righthand 11mo ago

I’m a modern developer and I see it as valuable. Why side with the browser teams and ignoring user feedback? If “modern developers” actually spent time with it, they’d find it valuable. Modern developers are idiots if their constant cry is “just write it in JS”. No idea what’s inaccurate about this. A billion dollar company that has no problem pivoting otherwise, can’t fund open technology “because budgets” is simply a lie.

shadowgovt 11mo ago
The dominant user feedback is the hard statistics on how rarely it's used. You can't trim the space of "users" to just "people who already adopted the technology" in the context of the cost of browser support.
- dpark 11mo ago
  “Everyone who uses the blink tag agrees it’s critical functionality.”
- righthand 11mo ago
  Yes excellent way to continue to diminish users of tech you don’t agree with. “The people who actually use it are wrong and don’t matter!”
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    I'm not personally in the business of maintaining a browser. But if I were, and I were looking to decrease cost of maintenance, "This entire rendering framework that supports a 0.02% use case" would be an outlier for chopping-block consideration. Not all corner-case features match that combination of cost-to-maintain and adoption (after, what, decades at this point?). We wouldn't be arguing the point if the feature in question were fax machine support, right?
    - righthand 11mo ago
      Yes we would because people still use fax machines. I don’t understand this “everything must be a business metric because it can, therefor if I can whittle any feature as a small minority, I am forever correct and just in destroying said technology. Look at smart and savvy I am.” Totally brain dead.
      - dpark 11mo ago
        Are browser manufacturers required to support features forever no matter how low the usage is? Do you still mourn for the loss of Gopher support?
        righthand 11mo ago
        Yes I mourn the loss of Gopher, RSS, XML, etc. Browser developers don’t have to do shit but it’s against the idea of an open web to kill off technology, especially one that’s A PART OF THE HTML STANDARD. You love a closed web. That’s why you’re backing Google and arguing for this. I can’t change that there are so many weak minded “yes daddy Google” people in the world. All I can do is advocate we support many technologies and ideas. The world you are advocating sounds locked down and uninteresting.
        shadowgovt 11mo ago
        Practically speaking, what does "open web" vs. "Closed web" mean in this context? Is "open web" just "maximally complies with the w3c standard?"
        righthand 11mo ago
        Open web means popular browsers supporting a wide range of technologies that institutions, businesses, and people use. Not: popular browsers needle through technologies and tell everyone they know best Does that make sense? Openess on the web isn’t a new term or concept so I’m not sure what’s confusing. It’s certainly not killing off technologies people are using. What is open web to you? “Overpaid Mba at Google says this is best so you better fall in line.”

exasperaited 11mo ago

XSLT in the browser was left fundamentally underdeveloped, which is why it is not really widespread. XSLT in non-browser contexts is absolutely valuable.

shadowgovt 11mo ago
Agreed; as a technology, it's both clever and fun. I learned it right around the time I first touched functional programming in general and it was neat to see how you could build a chain of declarative rules to go from one document to another document. Personally, I don't think we need a dedicated native-implemented browser engine for it. But in general I'm glad the tech exists.