| ▲ | kstrauser 7 hours ago | |||||||
Furthermore, you can’t polyfill USB support. It’s something that the browser itself must support if it’s going to be used at all, as by definition it can’t run entirely inside the browser. That’s not true for XSLT, except in the super-niche case of formatting RSS prettily via linking to XSLT like a stylesheet, and the intersection of “people who consume RSS” and “people who regularly consume it directly through the browser” has to be vanishingly small. | ||||||||
| ▲ | troupo an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> Furthermore, you can’t polyfill USB support. You can't polyfill many things. Should we just dump everything into the browser? Well, Google certainly thinks so. But that makes the question about "but this feature is unused, why support it" moot. And Google has no intention to support a polyfill, or ship it with the browser. The same person who didn't even know that XSLT is used on podcast sites scribbled together some code, said "here, it's easy", and that's it. And the main metric they use for deprecations is the number of sites/page uses. So even that doesn't work in favor of all the hardware APIs (and a few hundred others) that Google just shoved into the browser. At least there's consensus on removing XSLT, right? But there are many, many objections about USB, HID, etc. And still that doesn't stop Google from developing, shipping and maintaining them. Basically, the entire discussion around XSLT struck a nerve partly because all of the arguments can immediately be applied to any number of APIs that browsers, and especially Chrome, have no trouble shipping. And that comes on top of the mismanaged disaster that was the attempt to remove alert/confirm several years ago (also, "used on few sites", "security risk", "simpler code", "full browser consensus" etc.) | ||||||||
| ||||||||