remember how Chrome deprecated XSLT and everyone got insanely outraged over it?

[whitequark@mastodon.social]

@TheIdOfAlan it's just one tag!

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@whitequark the polyfill should have been integrated in the browser instead of requiring external download.

[whitequark@mastodon.social]

@oblomov i made the same argument for flash once

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@whitequark @curche there's a Rust implementation of it too, xee

https://github.com/Paligo/xee

which, as many things FLOSS without a huge company being them, is not yet complete, but still under active development.

Requiring JavaScript for static documents is unforgivably invasive.

[whitequark@mastodon.social]

@oblomov i'm just happy to see XSLT (mostly) gone

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@whitequark @TheIdOfAlan it's a tag we shouldn't need because the browsers could trivially ship the polyfill themselves. But Google has been intent in killing XML (and RSS) for over a decade now, as part of their effort to destroy the open web, so this is what we get instead.

The WHATWG is not a good steward if the open web.

https://wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia/google-killing-open-web/

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@whitequark flash is a proprietary technology, XSLT is an open standard.

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@whitequark I'm not. XLST is perfect for what it does, which is to transform data.

Much of the difficulties in using it stem (1) from browsers getting suck at 1.0 for over the decades despite 2.0 having been out since 2007 (2) browsers not adopting XQuery and (3) browsers not providing meaningful messages on error.

[whitequark@mastodon.social]

@oblomov flash was way more valuable to culture and art than xslt is ever going to be.

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@whitequark but it could never be made truly part of the open web without open sourcing the player or at the very least providing a full specification of the format, and removing licensing restrictions which they chose not to do. The death of Flash is by and large on Adobe's shoulders,

(And that's still no reason to rejoyce about Google killing XSLT.)

[sch@snac.bobadin.icu]

@whitequark@mastodon.social

You are obviously mistaken.

Even before HTML5 and before Animated PNG and SVG were specified, "The Treebuilder" has beautifully demonstrated various of viable possibilities with both SVG and XSLT, including JS inside SVG, and even embedding of fonts, which are significantly better than SWF. He did that with HTML4.

Therefore, XSLT has more potential than SWF ever had.

http://treebuilder.de/default.asp?file=313823.xml

Those so called "browser vendors" have deliberately ignored "The Treebuilder" in favour of what is known today as HTML5 and its subsequent privacy hazards, because it is in their interest to violate our privacy for the sake of "bills of exchange".

If The Treebuilder was known by most of the people who utilize those "HTML/HTTP browsers" then it would be obvious that those "browsers" are useless and fraudulent.

CC: @oblomov@sociale.network