• Feyd@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Chrome’s team argues that because only about 0.02% of page loads use XSLT, it’s not worth the maintenance burden.

    Surely given the volume of browser usage, 0.02% is still a very substantial amount of usage. Lazy fucks

    • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      0.02% of page loads is honestly way more than I would’ve expected. The fact that they would look at that number and see an excuse to remove a feature like this is honestly a gigantic red flag for the way these browsers are being developed. Granted, it’s not that surprising if you’ve been paying attention to the embrace-extend-extinguish march of web technologies towards a walled garden controlled by tech giants, but this is part of the writing on the wall, folks.

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m not entirely sure what the “maintenance burden” even is on a tech that hasn’t changed in decades.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        From the article:

        Google says it’s removing XSLT to address security vulnerabilities. The underlying library that processes XSLT in Chrome (libxslt) is an aging C/C++ codebase with known memory safety issues. Chrome’s team argues that because only about 0.02% of page loads use XSLT, it’s not worth the maintenance burden.

        It’s debatable whether Google, with all its resources, really needs to do this, especially given that 0.02% of all page loads is still quite a lot. But there are certainly times when it’s better to just delete seldom-used old code from your project to lower the maintenance burden and reduce the surface area for attacks.