Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Mar 2008 10:07 UTC, submitted by gonzo
"We've decided that IE8 will, by default, interpret web content in the most standards compliant way it can. This decision is a change from what we've posted previously. Microsoft recently published a set of Interoperability Principles. Thinking about IE8's behavior with these principles in mind, interpreting web content in the most standards compliant way possible is a better thing to do. We think that acting in accordance with principles is important, and IE8's default is a demonstration of the interoperability principles in action. While we do not believe any current legal requirements would dictate which rendering mode a browser must use, this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue. As stated above, we think it's the better choice." Ars has more.
Thread beginning with comment 303344
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-04
"What makes you think it was the EU and not just the general feeling of web-developers who have been complaining about this issue from left to right?
Well, FTA:
Microsoft is citing its new interoperability initiative as the impetus behind the change. This move, designed primarily to stave off further EU intervention, emphasizes support and promotion of open standards in a way that the company hasn't previously done. This move should also help to fend off Opera's antitrust complaint, which argues that the EU should force IE into better standards compliance.
That's a pretty good indicator of why they are doing it, don't you think? "
If I recall correctly, the EC head trashed the Interoperability Initiative, essentially saying "It's not for real". So maybe Microsoft was already planning to do make this move, not in response to the EC (or Opera (give me a break)), but in response to the outcry from web devs, and simply cited the Interoperability Initiative as an opportunity to say, "See EC, it is too for real!". And it may work. They've got *you* admitting that the Interoperability Initiative is for real, after all.
Member since:2006-12-28
If I recall correctly, the EC head trashed the Interoperability Initiative, essentially saying "It's not for real".
Bit late now though, isn't it? ;-)
...(or Opera (give me a break))
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss 'em. Sure, compared to MS they are less than small fry, but with the European Commission on their side...well, we can all see what the EC can do.
but in response to the outcry from web devs, and simply cited the Interoperability Initiative as an opportunity to say, "See EC, it is too for real!". And it may work.
As I have said before, I'll be the first to back em up if they are for real. Until then, they have much to do to change my, or it seems the EC's, mind about how they operate. Here is to hoping for the best.
They've got *you* admitting that the Interoperability Initiative is for real, after all.
Lol! They most certainly do. Never even thought of it that way.
Glad to see your back. It's about time we had a real pro-MS heavy weight around here again, not these new wannabes that keep popping up. (Not that I'm saying your fat, or anything, just that...anybody got a bigger shovel for me?).
Member since:2005-07-24
If I recall correctly, the EC head trashed the Interoperability Initiative, essentially saying "It's not for real".
You do not recall *quite* correctly. They were very understandably skeptical. However, they did say that they would be pleased if Microsoft actually followed through with their promises. The gist of their message was that they were taking a wait and see attitude. This is a reasonable and easy first step that MS is taking. But it is still very early in the process to know if they are really sincere. Talk is cheap.
The EC also stated that while they would take note of what Microsoft may or may not be doing today, it does not change history regarding transgressions which they may have made in the past, just as you or me being good citizens now would not change our histories regarding any laws or regulations we might have broken in the past.
I am what one might call "optimistically skeptical" about the situation at this point. That's about a notch down from "cautiously optimistic". As a Unix advocate, I've been at odds with MS in my professional life for coming up on 20 years. It's going to take a little more than some promises made under threat of having even more discovered about their activities back when they thought no one was looking and that they were untouchable, in another investigation, to convince me of their sincerity. If and when I am convinced that they really are sincere, and for the long term, I assure you that I will be dancing on air, flying through rainbows, and doing figure eights around cloud nine; I do not begrudge MS a prominent position in the IT landscape, you see.
But in the mean time, I'm going to monitor OSNews for further information. ;-)
Edited 2008-03-04 19:40 UTC
Member since:
2006-12-28
Well, FTA:
That's a pretty good indicator of why they are doing it, don't you think?