Death Comes for XSLT
Posted by colejohnson66 4 hours ago
Comments
Comment by daylily 55 minutes ago
Edit: You don't need XSLT to style your feeds. I've been using a script that does the same [1], because browsers will read and run XHTML <script> tags inside any XML document.
Comment by xp84 19 minutes ago
Google can do literally nothing to disrupt RSS since its only important use is in real feed readers, which Chrome isn't.
Surely free-tier ChatGPT can in 5 minutes make a replacement that you could use to parse an RSS feed and render whatever you want. I guess it wouldn't be at the exact feed URL, though the server could use User-Agent to cheat at that, probably.
Comment by kenferry 1 hour ago
From one of the issue trackers:
"While it's important to not break existing web content, it's also important to prevent security vulnerabilities. XSLT has been in maintenance mode in browsers and has been an ongoing source of security issues."
Comment by pmarreck 51 minutes ago
LOL, what?? I used to work in shops, circa early 2000's, where 100% of the report-generation was driven by XSLT. I'm pretty sure it had massive corporate penetration at some point, especially when riding along with Microsoft's pervasive-at-the-time support of the standard. And I'm sure it's still got decent penetration out there.
Comment by xp84 28 minutes ago
> massive corporate penetration
By this standard, every desktop should still ship with a copy of Internet Explorer 6. Most of what made it "special" compared to say, the contemporary Firefox 2.0, was its huge pile of special sauce used only in corporate settings. That stuff had massive corporate penetration as well, but we moved on because ActiveX in the browser wasn't worth the security cost of keeping it around.
If there are important legacy things sitting around corporate environments that literally require XSLT to function, they've had over a year of warning in which to sort it out -- port it to something else, or, pick some alternative browser, pin its version, and set it up with a proxy that can only access your weird XSLT sites. They'll be improving their own security posture with that move, as well!
Random corporations' failure to plan doesn't constitute a need for the rest of the world to continue to maintain obsolete technologies for free.
Comment by cowlevel 20 minutes ago
IMO the main use of client-side XSLT was making people say "what the-?" when they viewed source, because they'd get an XML document full of your entirely custom tags, not the output of the XSLT processor. Which is pretty cool in itself but not worth the attack surface.
Comment by kenferry 36 minutes ago
Comment by ergonaught 35 minutes ago
Bummer, I guess.
Comment by xp84 26 minutes ago
I never learned the first thing about it, other than its name, so I'll admit ignorance.
Comment by ProAm 10 minutes ago
<blink> has entered the chat </blink>
Comment by jauntywundrkind 32 minutes ago
The "we tried, it failed" story would be a lot more interesting in its bland boring shitty conservative dismissal rejection if the browsers had ever tried to support it. XSLT shipped 1.0 in 1999 and the browsers afaik never once ever did any further work, never bothered on the 2.0 (2007, incredibly better), 3.0 (2017), or new 4.0 (upcoming). Devs had to deal with the pretty jank early version, which changed a lot for 2.0! Massively! For massive betterment.
It's so so cheap and easy to discard and downput. I recommend to those desiring the path of the engineer the builder to be more sensitive. To tune in to what is good, what aspects did work. Look for value. The people in this world need those instincts, to look and assess and collect. The story of why things maybe don't work is the contrapositive failure, the same post hoc ergo propter hoc, but for the failure case. It's wrong, or at least, it usually misses the realer stories. It's a bad analysis filter.
This refusal to ever see the maybe, better, possibly rejects your ability to see and tune for more. Progress on, stop rejecting. Get good. Find good. Look for the good. Bring out the good. Or if not, consider the perhaps. If nothing else, more neutrally: let not you tie your wagon every time to the current of what is! (Another world is possible.)
Comment by telebub 2 hours ago
Comment by sheepscreek 1 hour ago
I suppose the world has nearly moved away from XML (for browsers, not yet for folks still enjoying SOAP APIs). And as a result, XSLT has fallen into obscurity.
Comment by rhdunn 1 hour ago
XSLT is still used on the server back-end for rendering publisher documents (JATS, etc.) and for things like US bills.
Comment by xp84 7 minutes ago
Basically it's like a list of everything that was clean-sheet invented like ~ 1996-2007 used XML, then over the course of about 2 years it transitioned, and almost nothing invented after 2009 or so used it. It was like the whole software industry realized what a huge mistake and pivoted to JSON, all at once.
Comment by sheepscreek 3 minutes ago
For XML, we can add docx/xlsx/pptx/odt/ods/odp to the list.
Comment by MrMorden 2 hours ago
Comment by antonvs 1 hour ago
Comment by ajasmin 1 hour ago
What would be a modern equivalent of a JSON to HTML transformer?
Comment by pornel 1 hour ago
Comment by daylily 1 hour ago
Comment by pmarreck 48 minutes ago
and yet a single newline in a text field will shatter its validity or force you to enter escaping-hell.
(I tamed that entire general problem by making https://github.com/pmarreck/printable_binary, and it will permit you to pack all binary data into a string, without any escaping issues, while retaining ascii legibility, although that requires a decoding step.)
Comment by Joker_vD 37 minutes ago
So would a single & or > in the body of an XML element, you know.
Comment by wewewedxfgdf 17 minutes ago
Comment by euroderf 1 hour ago
Comment by cowlevel 16 minutes ago
Comment by jauntywundrkind 1 hour ago
It's just an idea & very amorphous, but I dig Dorian Taylor's swet. As an idea of where we could go. wasm but also how it gets used too, what xslt could mean. https://github.com/doriantaylor/swet
Worth repeating again that the browser's never really maintained or supported XSLT at all. That, afaik, it never got past 1.0 era support. Which was bad. But there's a 2.0 (vastly better!), a 3.0, and at the same time the browsers decided not to support xslt, a 4.0.
XSLT is not a straight fit for use, doesn't seem likely to become a mainstream technology. But it's incredibly powerful & very declarative a way to produce, to transform. In that way, it's one of the most RFC 8890 The Internet Is For End Users specifications of all time, one of the only places where we can describe what is fundamentally compute as clear data, without all the opinion and decoration of code, in a clear way. We could build visualizations and explainers of what XSLT is happening, what productions are occuring, that illuminate what the page is doing, that link data in to data out in a traceable, clear, identifiable way. That the arbitrariness of code can compete with, but never so universally, only by creating it's own bespoke particular solutions, where-as XSLT has some universality.
I'm both pretty sad at the situation, but ultimately, I don't think the browser's bad choice & their laziness to help make the right thing possible matters. There's great good here, and their lack of doing the right thing doesn't actually slow things down. The problem is still that we just lack the will of the good, that developers and more so enterprises want to do the big industrial stacks, but that that is totally decoupled from what is good for the web, what is good for the users.