-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 318
Remove mentions of XSLT from the DOM spec #1400
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This comment was marked as abuse.
This comment was marked as abuse.
So two things. One is that I haven't locked a single thread. Two is that others have (rightly) locked several threads because people kept making ad hominem attacks (like calling people "extremely childish") rather than focusing on the technical discussion. I've never seen a thread on WHATWG locked for disagreements - there are many examples of quite heated disagreements that are still open for comment. However, in those examples, the participants were able to talk about the merits of the technology being discussed, without disparaging the people making the comments. |
I do apologise if it was not actually you or any other user from Google who locked those threads, but, IMO, the point still stands that the person who did do so is acting in a manner that's actively hostile to having an open dialogue regarding a proposal that appears to be quite unpopular. |
It wasn't me, but again, I appreciate that they did so.
On the contrary, it's unfortunate that the people who feel so passionate about this tech can't control themselves enough to act professionally and have a civil discussion. I want to understand actual use cases and try to mitigate issues, but now I can't hear from the subset of affected people who are able to carry on a conversation without name calling. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should add the interface to the Historical section. That would more clearly indicate its status. Looks good otherwise.
Oh, and I guess we need to figure out how to deal with the MDN CI failures. Would that require first removing the incoming references from MDN @sideshowbarker? |
Yeah, or else — based on what the error message at https://github.com/whatwg/dom/actions/runs/17081950335/job/48437853413?pr=1400#step:5:30 says, we could set the (And to be clear, the only related consequence of those IDs going missing is that, in the margins next to places in the spec where those IDs occur, the MDN panels that’d otherwise show up there just no longer show up any more. In other words, it doesn’t otherwise break anything in any observable way — in particular, it doesn’t affect end-users/readers of the spec.) |
This goes along with whatwg/html#11563.
Done.
Thanks!
Let me know if there's something I need to do within this PR, or if this should be separate. I don't know where the bikeshed options are configured. |
This goes along with whatwg/html#11563.
Closes #181.
(See WHATWG Working Mode: Changes for more details.)
Preview | Diff