4 ms·

> it is simply no one wants to maintain libxslt and it is full of security issues. Given how rarely it is used, it is just not worth the time + money. As for m

• bawolff 1y ago
  > Remind me what was Google's profit last year? Last i checked, google isn't a charity.
  • mschuster91 1y ago
    Their products are built on open source. Android and Chrome come to my mind, but also their core infrastructure, it's all Linux and other FOSS under the hood. Besides, xkcd #2347 [1] is talking about precisely that situation - there is a shitload of very small FOSS libraries that underpin everything and yet, funding from the big dogs for whom even ten fulltime developer salaries would be a sneeze has historically lacked hard. [1] https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
    • maple3142 1y ago
      To be honest, there are two ways to solve the problem of xkcd 2347, either putting efforts into the very small library or just stop depending on it. Both solutions are fine to me and Google apparent just choose the latter one here.
      • bawolff 1y ago
        If not depending on a library is an option, then you dont really have an xkcd 2347 problem. The entire point of that comic is that some undermaintained dependencies are critical, without reasonable alternatives.
      • 1718627440 1y ago
        Except it's not Google whose "products" stop working by removing that dependency.
    • bawolff 1y ago
      The thing is, xslt isn't underpinning much of anything, that is why google is removing it instead of fixing it. Google does contribute to software that it uses. When i say google is not a charity, i mean why would they continue to use a library that is not useful to them, just so they can have an excuse to contribute to it? It makes very little sense.
      • troupo 1y ago
        > The thing is, xslt isn't underpinning much of anything Neither do huge complicated standards that Chrome pushed in recent years. > that is why google is removing it instead of fixing it. And yet Google has no issues supporting, deploying and fixing features that see 10x less usage. Also, see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45874740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45874740 > i mean why would they continue to use a library that is not useful to them, just so they can have an excuse to contribute to it? It makes very little sense. They took upon themselves the role of benevolent stewards of the web. According to their own principles they should exercise extreme care when adding or removing features to the web. However, since they dominate the browser market, and have completely subsumed all web-related committees, they have turned into arrogant uncaring dictators.
        • bawolff 1y ago
          > However, since they dominate the browser market, and have completely subsumed all web-related committees, they have turned into arrogant uncaring dictators. Apple and firefox agree with them. They did not do this unilaterally. By sone accounts it was actually firefox originally pushing for this.
          • troupo 1y ago
            While others may agree with them [1], Google are the ones immediately springing into action [2]. They only started collecting feedback on which sites may break after they already pushed "Intention to remove" and prepared a PR to remove it from Chromium. The main guy pushing it didn't even know RSS sites as used by podcasts until after people flooded the issue with examples and requests not to remove. E.g. https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-3152359096 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-315... [1] Reaction was "cautiously agree" btw. In that same issue, https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-3149280766 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-314... and https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-3149788558 https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-314... [2] Same as with alert/prompt. While all browsers would want to remove them, Chrome not only immediately decided to remove them with very short notice, but literally refused to even engage with people pointing out issues until a very large public outcry: https://gomakethings.com/google-vs.-the-web/#the-chrome-team-has-handled-this-very-badly https://gomakethings.com/google-vs.-the-web/#the-chrome-team... There's a difference between "we agree on principle" and "we don't care, remove/ship/change YOLO"
  • basscomm 1y ago
    > Last i checked, google isn't a charity. Last I checked, Google isn't supposed to be able to unilaterally decide how the World Wide Web is supposed to work
• vladms 1y ago
  For me the usage argument sounds like an argument to kill the other standards rather than to keep this one. Browsers should try things. But if after many years there is no adoption they should also retire them. This would be no different if the organization is charity or not.
  • troupo 1y ago
    > For me the usage argument sounds like an argument to kill the other standards rather than to keep this one. Google themselves have a document on why killing anything in the web platform is problematic: e.g. Chrome stats severely under-report corporate usage. See "Blink principles of web compatibility" https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpSpNJ96U8trhNkfV0v9fk/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RC-pBBvsazYfCNNUSkPqAVpS... It has great examples for when removal didn't break things, and when it did break things etc. I don't know if anyone pays attention to this document anymore. Someone from Chrome linked to this document when they wanted to remove alert/prompt, and it completely contradicted their narrative.