Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jan 2010 20:01 UTC
Internet Explorer It would appear that Microsoft will finally take standards compliance in the browser world seriously, after dragging its feet for years. Back in November 2009, the Redmond giant already revealed that Internet Explorer 9 would come with CSS3 and HTML5 support, and now the cup runneth over, as Microsoft has requested to join the W3C's SVG Working Group.
Thread beginning with comment 402922
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Wed 6th Jan 2010 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realize that CSS3 and HTML5 are draft standards, right? Is your definition of a "decent" browser to mean one that ships with unfinished standards?

I've worked with IE8 and I've had very few problems with it. I really think a lot of this IE bashing is carried over from the IE6 days.

As for trying to replace Flash with (draft) HTML5 it won't make a difference until Google switches youtube over. Google is actually in the best position when it comes to ridding the world of Flash but they seem to be taking their sweet time.


Agreed; that is the only reason why I have Flash installed - so I can watch YouTube. If there was no need to use Flash with YouTube, it would be the first thing I would uninstall if I had the chance.

The problem is that there are still large numbers of online stores that use Flash extensively unfortunately - and Microsoft dragging their heals isn't helping the situation.

As for draft; the whole HTML5 might be in 'draft' but there are parts of the draft that are finalised and static; they've already been hashed out and all the parties agree with it - why not implement those ones? Limur IIRC listed a huge array of technologies, some existing in stable form for over a decade that haven't been implemented by Microsoft yet. Lets not try to kid ourselves, the moment that HTML5 does gain traction I can assure you Microsoft and Adobe will be running for cover.

I suggest all those Microsoft apologists who can't help but apologise for Microsoft to have a look at over a decade of obstruction or non-participation by Microsoft when it comes to open standards. They sat on OASIS for the ODF specification, knew that it didn't fulfill the requierments of being suitable for Microsoft Office - but did they contribute *ANYTHING* so that it could be transformed into a first class file format for Microsoft Office? of course not. They sat by and did nothing - and when the format was finalised all they did was bash the OASIS group for having a format that didn't address all the Microsoft features (where the hell were you Microsoft when you could have provided input in the design phase?!).

Then there is HTML5, again, what contributions have they made - there is a stalemate when it comes to the default video format - why doesn't Microsoft office the VC-1 format royalty free for open source browser and CODEC projects? Silly me! that would actually require Microsoft to realise that the whole world doesn't revolve around them and that they do actually have to contribute something to the larger ecosystem besides obstructing the development of standards.

Quite frankly, to put up the issue about IE6 for the bad reputation of Internet Explorer in general is disingenuous - the issue goes well beyond simply that of Internet Explorer and covers the entire company culture that encourages balkanisation of standards, obstructing standards from being developed or simply standing back not doing anything to improve standards then turn around a month later after it has been standardised simply to bad mouth it.

Edited 2010-01-06 23:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Thu 7th Jan 2010 00:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't see the real urgency, when today, now, at this moment, you can write RIAs in Silverlight and be more productive than with anything HTML5/SVG/CSS3 could possibly offer up.

Nice additions sure, but its not the end of the world. Flash just gives plugin based RIAs a bad name, Silverlight runs circles around it performance wise.

Silverlight still does things faster than every browsers Javascript implementation, especially with the GPU support in Silverlight3.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 00:25 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see the real urgency, when today, now, at this moment, you can write RIAs in Silverlight and be more productive than with anything HTML5/SVG/CSS3 could possibly offer up.

Nice additions sure, but its not the end of the world. Flash just gives plugin based RIAs a bad name, Silverlight runs circles around it performance wise.

Silverlight still does things faster than every browsers Javascript implementation, especially with the GPU support in Silverlight3.


Assuming you live in a Windows only world; what about those on non-Windows machines? what about those who then end up creating non-portable Silverlight applications by using the new COM feature (in Silverlight 4) to call native code? If everyone was a first class citizen on Silverlight because Microsoft gave a crap about more than just the Windows implementation then I'd be happy to jump on the Silverlight bandwagon but when non-Windows users are relegated to second class citizenship (both plugin and development tools) one is stuck between either the abortion of a RIA called Flash or Silverlight where all non-Microsoft platforms are second class citizens.

Edited 2010-01-07 00:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by werpu on Thu 7th Jan 2010 07:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

I don't see the real urgency, when today, now, at this moment, you can write RIAs in Silverlight and be more productive than with anything HTML5/SVG/CSS3 could possibly offer up.

Nice additions sure, but its not the end of the world. Flash just gives plugin based RIAs a bad name, Silverlight runs circles around it performance wise.

Silverlight still does things faster than every browsers Javascript implementation, especially with the GPU support in Silverlight3.


Thanks no I wont write things in silverlight, a semi closed technology only working in Windows... The current situation is that it is better to stick to plain ole web without too much fancy, then you also can support mobile devices rather swiftly.
Silverlight is yet another Microsoft attempt to take over the web instead of playing nicely. Before using Silverlight I even would use flex, it is more portable and the proprietarity factor is about the same.
Remember that Microsoft once had IE versions for the Mac and Unix that is what you get if you go into bed with Microsoft solutions which do not adhere to standards, in the long run you will get a lockin, been there done that never again!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by spiderman on Thu 7th Jan 2010 10:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I don't see the real urgency, when today, now, at this moment, you can write RIAs in Silverlight and be more productive than with anything HTML5/SVG/CSS3 could possibly offer up.

Nice additions sure, but its not the end of the world. Flash just gives plugin based RIAs a bad name, Silverlight runs circles around it performance wise.

Silverlight still does things faster than every browsers Javascript implementation, especially with the GPU support in Silverlight3.

Silversight does not replace SVG!
SVG is accessible and can even be rendered on text browsers, blind people can get a description, etc...
Silversight is designed to replace java and in my opinion is inferior to java anyway. Java has many implementions on many platforms. It runs on AIX as well as on S40. Nobody uses Silversight on the Web, except Microsoft.
Really, this has nothing to do with SVG. SVG can be tightly integrated into xhtml and you can do whatever you want with XSL. Silversight is for annoying ads that you won't be able to block on 80% of desktop computers.

Edited 2010-01-07 10:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Thu 7th Jan 2010 04:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Agreed; that is the only reason why I have Flash installed - so I can watch YouTube. If there was no need to use Flash with YouTube, it would be the first thing I would uninstall if I had the chance. The problem is that there are still large numbers of online stores that use Flash extensively unfortunately - and Microsoft dragging their heals isn't helping the situation.


Why would those stores switch to HTML5 when everyone installs Flash? It isn't as if HTML5 offers bandwidth savings. There isn't a default codec so are you suggesting that those stores build multiple formats? What is to be gained?

If you want to blame anyone for holding back HTML5 video it is Google, not Microsoft. Google is the one that keeps youtube in Flash even though they have the resources to convert the videos to the Theora format. But guess what? They don't want to. Sure they ship Chrome with Theora support but that doesn't matter when they keep youtube in Flash. As you said that's why you install Flash in the first place. Most people will install anything to watch youtube. Does Google take advantage of this to move the web away from flash? Nope, in fact they have partnered with Adobe to bring flash to their phones.


As for draft; the whole HTML5 might be in 'draft' but there are parts of the draft that are finalised and static; they've already been hashed out and all the parties agree with it - why not implement those ones?


HTML5 is really all about video. Flash has been the bane for alternative operating systems which is why HTML5 is being pushed.

If you think browsers should support subsets of HTML5 then state them, but people shouldn't bash IE for not following HTML5 when the W3C explicitly describes it as a working draft.
http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/05/_watching_the_google_io.html


Quite frankly, to put up the issue about IE6 for the bad reputation of Internet Explorer in general is disingenuous - the issue goes well beyond simply that of Internet Explorer and covers the entire company culture that encourages balkanisation of standards, obstructing standards from being developed or simply standing back not doing anything to improve standards then turn around a month later after it has been standardised simply to bad mouth it.


You have a grudge against Microsoft that prevents you from judging their products individually. That's ok, it's a common bias.

However try not to let your hatred blind you from the current reality of Google buddying up with Adobe which will ensure that Flash is around for another 10 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 04:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You have a grudge against Microsoft that prevents you from judging their products individually. That's ok, it's a common bias.

However try not to let your hatred blind you from the current reality of Google buddying up with Adobe which will ensure that Flash is around for another 10 years.


I have a common bias against Microsoft? then what the heck do you call this:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?402924

Apparently I heap praise on Microsoft and apparently I am against Microsoft overall. Nice to see that you ignore my other posts regarding Microsoft; it isn't an all or none approach; I attack what I dislike and I heap praise on what I do like.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by rayson on Thu 7th Jan 2010 06:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
rayson Member since:
2009-05-21

Agreed; that is the only reason why I have Flash installed - so I can watch YouTube. If there was no need to use Flash with YouTube, it would be the first thing I would uninstall if I had the chance.


+1

I have firefox and IE6 on my Win2k machine. Firefox for everything and IE6 with flash enabled for youtube. When I get my Win7 laptop later this year, I will finally "upgrade" from Firefox to Chrome -- ie. Chrome for everything and Firefox for youtube.

I really hate Flash, it's slow, and from time to time my broswer crashes because of it. All non-youtube flash sites won't be visited by me.

Rayson

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by smashIt on Thu 7th Jan 2010 10:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

They sat on OASIS for the ODF specification, knew that it didn't fulfill the requierments of being suitable for Microsoft Office - but did they contribute *ANYTHING* so that it could be transformed into a first class file format for Microsoft Office? of course not. They sat by and did nothing - and when the format was finalised all they did was bash the OASIS group for having a format that didn't address all the Microsoft features (where the hell were you Microsoft when you could have provided input in the design phase?!).


what should they have done in your opinion?
make odf an ooxml clone and render it virtualy unimplementable for everyone else?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Jan 2010 01:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

what should they have done in your opinion?
make odf an ooxml clone and render it virtualy unimplementable for everyone else?


Microsoft's software is awful, I agree, but it is not intrinsically un-implementable.

All that needs to be done is for it to be specified, and it can be implemented in other products.

The objective from the outset for ODF was to make an open specification for a document storage format that anyone could implement. Even Microsoft. Royalty free. Microsoft were invited to participate, to give input on what needed to be included in the format specifications in order to satisfy the storage requirement for Microsoft's own Office products, and Microsoft chose to not co-operate.

Microsoft sat through every meeting when ODF was being formulated, and said not one word the whole time.

This incident with SVG is entirely similar. An open standard for scalable graphics (capable of being animated) was being formulated, with a view that anyone could implement it, royalty free. Microsoft made no input. The standard was agreed, and later expanded with additional functionality. Microsoft refused to implement it.

Now, here we are, ten years later, and Microsoft finally want to say something about it.

Talk about recalcitrant. When it comes to standards (which all may implement), Microsoft define that word.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3A+recalcitrant&ie=utf...

Edited 2010-01-08 01:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1