Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Jan 2009 15:29 UTC
Internet Explorer After successfully battling Microsoft over the company's bundling of Windows Media Player, the European Union is now ready for more. The European Commission has charged Microsoft with violating competition laws because of the Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows.
Thread beginning with comment 344344
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: the real issue
by psycroptic on Mon 19th Jan 2009 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: the real issue"
psycroptic
Member since:
2009-01-19

Sure; we're not there yet by a long shot, and it most likely will take some outside force in order for Microsoft to update IE to be fully (or as full as possibile) standards compliant. But I think it's safe to say that there's been significant progress made since, I don't know, '99 or so. I mean, the whole MS DHTML deal kinda died down after it was shown to be quite un-portable. And while Silverlight still is a bit unsettling to me simply because it's entirely created within the Redmond walls, it seems to me (on the surface at least, cause I haven't delved into the details) that they're being a bit less imprisoning of the specifics of the whole thing.

Idk; I tend to hold out hope for open standards in general, just cause I think they work and I feel that they overall tend to make things easier.

IE is Microsoft's deliberate vehicle to undermine the very concept of device independence, and require everyone to use IE on a Windows platform in order to view web content. Microsoft's strategy CANNOT be allowed to succeed.


If you were to ask them, I suppose they might answer you with something along the lines of "it's our business model." While I do think that you can absolutely attack them for deliberately not complying with decades- and half-decades-old standards, it sounds as if you're making IE out to be this malevolent entity.

My original opinion (on tying the browser into the OS as much as MS has) still stands, though.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: the real issue
by RickGraham on Mon 19th Jan 2009 14:17 in reply to "RE[2]: the real issue"
RickGraham Member since:
2009-01-19

The thing is, Microsoft has implemented SVG. Silverlight is SVG with the Element and Attribute names changed to make the spec proprietary. The content is the same.

Why?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: the real issue
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Jan 2009 22:38 in reply to "RE[3]: the real issue"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The thing is, Microsoft has implemented SVG. Silverlight is SVG with the Element and Attribute names changed to make the spec proprietary. The content is the same.


Is this really the case? Two observations make it seem unlikely:

(1) Merely changing the name of parts of the spec would not make it proprietary, and

(2) Since Firefox, Safari, Opera, Konqueror et al already render SVG correctly, why would Novell need to write the Moonlight plugin (and therein include binary codecs as supplied by Microsoft) in order to add Silverlight capability to browsers on Linux?

Edited 2009-01-19 22:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2