Hacker News Reader

Comment by troupo | Hacker News Reader

This was mentioned in the discussions and are an easy search away. Which means that googlers in their arrogance didn't do any research at all and that their counter underrepresents data as explicitly stated in their own document

https://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/mods-conversions.html

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd_xml...

And then there's Congress: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/19/xslt/

View on HN

The library of congress examples appear to be using server side xslt not client side. Thus they are not affected by this deprecation.

Before calling people arrogant you should read your own links.

[The congress example is legit]

> [The congress example is legit]

So let me get this straight. The Congress example is legit. Multiple other cases discussed here: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523 are legit

And yet it's not the Googlers and other browser implementers who didn't do even a modicum or research who are arrogant, but me, because I made a potential mistake quickly searching for something on my phone at night?

Here is an example of a URI using client-side XSLT in the library of congress. They are definitely using this feature.

https://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/profiles/00000016.xml

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="echoProfile2html.xsl" ?>

Before calling people arrogant you should validate your own arrogance.

Do you honestly believe none of these will be addressed before the deadline passes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com