[SquareWheel]

I made no such implication. Mozilla is certainly an other party, and their positions on standards hold water. They successfully argued for Web Assembly over Native Client, and have blocked other proposals such as HTML Import in the Web Components API. They are still a key member of the WHATWG.

The fact that Mozilla aligns with Google on both of these deprecations suggests the reasons are valid.

I personally see no reason for XSLT today. Outside of the novelty of theming RSS feeds, it sees very little use. And JPEG XL carries a large security surface area which neither company was comfortable including in its current shape. That may change based on adoption and availability of memory-safe decoders.

[jfindper]

>>"[...] support the web standards as determined by other parties."

>"Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's"

If this isn't an implication that Mozilla isn't an other party, than I'm not sure what you were trying to say with "Which other parties?".

Whatever you meant to say, it read as an implication that Mozilla just does what Google does so Mozilla isn't really an "other party".

[SquareWheel]

It means exactly what it says: "What other parties do you mean?". Key players are already in lockstep on this decision, so insisting that Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL.

You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.