Liam. Good evening.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 21:30:41 -0000
"Liam R. E. Quin liam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 10:30:17 -0000
> "Schimon Jehudah sch@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > <noxsl>
> >   <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=?xsl=0"/>
> > </noxsl>
>
> Ibm guessing you really mean noxslt (xsl includes XSL-FO, the
> formatting spec).
>

Yes. tag "noxslt" be better.

> Is the idea that if XSLT is not supported in the browser, the browser
> will do a page reload adding xsl=0 to the URL?
>
> If so, you might conceivably get some traction from browser people,
> but the case where server is being maintained and someone can add
> markup is much less interesting to me than the case where pages and
> whole sites simply stop working.
>

I think that I would have good arguments for it.

> This particular suggestion has the disadvantages that any browser or
> agent that doesn't understand it will see the meta header, and also
> that if you put this in the head, the noxsl element ends the HTML
> head.
>

Perhaps, so.

Maybe, adding a comment should suffice.

<!--

Grreetings.

If you see this message, then it means that your software dies not
support XSL Transformations.

Please update to one of these software to view this document.

* Falkon

* Otter Browser

* qutebrowser

-->

> Maybe you could use noscript instead, since if you have JavaScript
> available you could do a redirect from there by looking for
> window.xsltProcessor.
>

Yes. That is planned.

I will be adding server-side directives to attempt to detect XSLT and
JS, with tests.

> liam
>

Thank you for your respond.

Best,
Schimon