Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thro1 222 days ago
Moreover: there is no JS solution being so stable and for so long as that standard: "25 year old version of XSLT".

Can be "made with JS" doesn't mean that by chance it would be in any bit better than long proved and still used solution - not a one of many crippled, always changing, excluding imitations of it - for example like that one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183624 (no caching, not instant, transparent or othogonal etc.).

With XSLT removed, Chrome can not claim to be a standard internet browser neither.

There is nothing wrong with XSLT - it's just Google not wanting to fix few bugs since decades - but others have to follow, nothing changes.

Actually.. I can't care less about Chrome - if others will not follow neither allow Google to reach such position claiming to be able to dastandardize working and used solutions.
2 comments
harrisi 222 days ago
For what it's worth, there does not exist a "standard internet browser," assuming that means an application that adheres to all relevant web standards. No piece of software exists (at least not publicly) that even adheres to the entirety of any single relevant web standard (e.g. HTML, CSS, ECMAScript, etc.), as far as I know.

Maybe for a few small things like JSON, I suppose, but not for any of the major standards. And not just as in they implement a superset of the standards - every browser implements a distinct set of each standard that is neither a subset nor a superset.

I'm still not a fan of Chrome nor the effect it has on the web.

link
thro1 222 days ago
The standard so far is to respect existing standards still in use, peoples effort and work done already - but not to outsource bug fixing costs by forcing any of that to be redone or lost.
link
thro1 222 days ago
- as in Europe, I don't see neither how taxpayers money or users time (if still alive) could be forcibly used to cover the costs of some far away corporation savings (on bug fixing) and profit, downgrading then a lot into more costly, less maintainable, not standard solutions.

But I see less of that money but much better used - to support any of open, independent, not for profit, conforming to standards browsers instead - in not following what a big corporation says and want.

link