They did not agree to remove it. This is a spun lie from the public posts I can see. They agreed to explore removing it but preferred to keep it for good reasons.

Only Google is pushing forward and twisting that message.

▲

JimDabell 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> They did not agree to remove it. This is a spun lie from the public posts I can see. They agreed to explore removing it but preferred to keep it for good reasons.

Mozilla:

> Our position is that it would be good for the long-term health of the web platform and good for user security to remove XSLT, and we support Chromium's effort to find out if it would be web compatible to remove support.

— https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1287#i...

WebKit:

> WebKit is cautiously supportive. We'd probably wait for one implementation to fully remove support, though if there's a known list of origins that participate in a reverse origin trial we could perhaps participate sooner.

— https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523#issuecomment-314...

Describing either of those as “they preferred to keep it” is blatantly untrue.

▲

righthand 16 hours ago | parent [-]

So you’re choosing to help them spin the lie by cherry picking comments.

The Mozilla comment itself ends with:

> If it turns out that it's not possible to remove support, then we think browsers should make an effort to improve the fundamental security properties of XSLT even at the cost of performance.

> If it turns out not to be possible to remove the feature, we’d like to replace our current implementation. The main requirements would be compatibility with existing web content, addressing memory safety security issues, and not regressing performance on non-XSLT content. We’ve seen some interest in sandboxing libxslt, and if something with that shape satisfied our normal production requirements we would ship it.

But the only way it’s possible to remove the feature is if you ignore everyone asking you to please not to remove it.

Therefor by totally ignoring push back you can then twist Mozilla reps words to mean the only option is to remove it.

Similarly with the Webkit comment:

> WebKit is cautiously supportive.

Both these orgs requested investigation not removal. Both expressed some concern and caution. Google did not, they only ever pushed forward with removing it. Even goong so far as to ignore the followup request to implement XSLT 3.0.

No it’s not blatantly untrue. It’s unblatantly misleading.

Furthermore I’d say for those specific comments, “go ahead and remove it”, the inverse is blatantly untrue.

	▲	JimDabell 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If somebody says “our position is A but if that’s not possible we should do B”, it means they prefer A. It doesn’t mean they prefer B, and telling people that they prefer B when you know otherwise is dishonest.