×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Finally Joins HTML 5 Standard Efforts

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the fashionably-late dept.

The Internet 280

bonch writes "On Friday, Microsoft posted to a mailing list that IE developers are reviewing the HTML 5 standard for future versions of Internet Explorer. They've given some feedback on the current editor's draft, saying that they 'have more questions than answers' and criticizing many of HTML 5's new tags, like <header>, <footer> and <aside>, calling them 'arbitrary' or unnecessary. It remains to be seen whether Microsoft waited too long to try to influence basic parts of the spec that most of their competitors have already adopted."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

Lol wut? (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995499)

"It remains to be seen whether Microsoft waited too long to try to influence basic parts of the spec that most of their competitors have already adopted."

Whatever Microsoft decides to implement is going to become a defacto standard.
It's the sad but true result of still significant share of the browser market.

Re:Lol wut? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995531)

Whatever Microsoft decides to implement is going to become a defacto standard.
It's the sad but true result of still significant share of the browser market.

Their market share is crumbling away year upon year, and this is despite new PCs coming with IE pre-installed and the default option. People are choosing to get an alternative. Factor in most browsing stats are from slackers on their work PCs, not home machines. HTML5 will not be targeted to people avoiding doing work at the office.

MS are about to be forced to offer a choice of browsers in other world markets, you can bet IE is going to take a hammering from that.

Most web devs don't give a hoot about IE specifics unless they're a doze only shop, few even bother with IE6 support any more unless contractually obliged to do so. If MS want to keep relevant, they are going to have to adhere to published specs. Their silly games of subtly breaking things to make devs code to IE is slowly coming to an end.

Re:Lol wut? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995607)

Factor in most browsing stats are from slackers on their work PCs, not home machines.

http://gs.statcounter.com/

Usage patterns vary a lot among countries, but the general trend is: IE usage drops on weekends, Fx usage climbs on weekends.

Re:Lol wut? (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995649)

This is something Opera could actually push quite much via other countries. Opera has 40-60% marketshare in CIS countries [opera.com], better than both FF and IE. They push the support for HTML5 and its new tags there and CIS websites adopt it (cyrillic language differences make it so that most people use local websites instead of US ones). IE and FF also has to start supporting the same to get marketshare there, and bam: you have the support elsewhere too. And they can also start supporting it on Wii, Mobile Phones and other accessories they make web browsers too. People usually underestimate the power of Opera because of their smaller marketshare (in US home PC's).

but you know how hard, complex Opera support is... (4, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995827)

Funny that supporting Opera is nothing more than supporting W3C standards and give up 1990s lame tricks like browser sniffing. Same goes for Apple Safari (Webkit), Firefox.

It is not extra work, it is what they (webmasters) should be doing at first place.

Re:but you know how hard, complex Opera support is (4, Interesting)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995951)

The amount of code that can be removed from a web app if you give the condition (!msie) is incredible. This is why more libraries do a check at initialization to determine if they're dealing with IE or "anything else", and then dynamically load the code for that environment.
I've started implementing a third condition to that: Is the browser non-IE && FF3+ || webkit (some chrome/safari feature sniffing) || Opera (again, some feature sniffing to see if it's from the past ~year). In these cases, the amount of code that's needed to be brought in, and the amount of bureaucracy that needs to be handled at runtime drops like a stone. The latest batch of browsers are amazingly fast and compliant.

Re:but you know how hard, complex Opera support is (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996145)

As much as I hate people browser sniffing, I do however think Opera has the easiest way to do so: if (window.opera) {}; I guess they needed to add it, as it came with a browser-string-selection-menu-item.

Re:but you know how hard, complex Opera support is (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996177)

It's what every decent webmaster has already done, right before starting to make their new site backwards compatible with the latest IE.

Re:Lol wut? (1)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996283)

Factor in most browsing stats are from slackers on their work PCs, not home machines.

http://gs.statcounter.com/

Usage patterns vary a lot among countries, but the general trend is: IE usage drops on weekends, Fx usage climbs on weekends.

Wow! That's a fascinating site.

Try looking at each country. Opera has a large usage share in places like Russia and Zimbabwe and in China IE is actually climbing. Some countries are almost exclusively MS shops such as Greenland.

Re:Lol wut? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996347)

Not quite. What happens is IE usage drops on weekends, and Firefox usage drops a little less on weekends. The net effect is that graphs of usage *share* behave as you described.

Re:Lol wut? (4, Insightful)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995545)

Whatever Microsoft decides to implement is going to become a defacto standard.

No, the real standards will be used properly. They'll just be surrounded by ugly hacks to make sure the page renders properly in Internet Explorer.

Spoiled kid better learn the rules already (1, Funny)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995859)

You see, the web pages are really becoming complex with amazing dynamic tricks all over the place... The days of Firefox, Opera, Webkit developers give up the real work in hand and try to hack the code to fix (!!!) the rendering are over. There is simply no kind of manpower to keep up with their junk.

I always kept minimal compatibility with MS IE but the day IE 8 claimed my XHTML 1 strict front page has "errors" and I spent hours trying to fix non existent bug, I deleted Windows virtual machine forever. Enough really. I don't want people who doesn't have power/basic knowledge to install a compliant browser to be my customers anyway.

Re:Spoiled kid better learn the rules already (2, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996007)

I don't want people who doesn't have power/basic knowledge to install a compliant browser to be my customers anyway.

Nice job if you can get it...
The rest of us are stuck with the "graceful degradation" (what a wonderful oxymoron that is) that's required if the browser is determined to be IE. The major problem is that when you want to *move forward* -- start using powerful CSS, canvas, and actually have a JavaScript engine that can run JS, as opposed to "crawl" it. In these cases you don't have much of a choice -- you either give up on functionality that's core to the app that you're designing, or give IE users the finger and tell them that their browser, and by extension (usually) the organization that forces them to use that browser and doesn't give them the ability to install anything else, is/are obsolete.

Re:Spoiled kid better learn the rules already (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996349)

"give IE users the finger and tell them that their browser, and by extension (usually) the organization that forces them to use that browser and doesn't give them the ability to install anything else, is/are obsolete."

I don't necessarily agree with giving anyone the finger, as it's impolite. But telling them the truth is, overall, a good thing.

Re:Spoiled kid better learn the rules already (3, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996211)

People that happilly spend their money on a crappy OS with a crappy browser are EXACTLY the kind of customers you want to buy your obviously crappy, "it worked fine in the laboratory"-style products.

Re:Lol wut? (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995993)

And, that is exactly where the REST of the world is screwing up. We (meaning all the world outside of Redmond) need to set the standard, then comply with it. If/when pages don't render in IE, we need to shrug, and say, "So what?" IT IS NOT THE WORLD'S PROBLEM when MS chooses to break things. Ballmer wants to throw a chair, few of us notices, and even fewer give a damn. Ballmer wants to break IE, I don't notice, and I don't give a damn. Why does anyone else?

The correct procedure for website design, would be to test the site in FF, Opera, Safari, and/or any other standards compliant browser, and say you're done. Don't even TRY to load it in IE. If it loads, fine, if not, tough. If/when someone complains, just tell that individual that the page renders perfectly in any standards compliant browser, and that they should get one.

It is not the rest of the world's responsibility to "fix" MS screw ups.

Re:Lol wut? (2)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996149)

No, it's not the rest of the world's responsibility to fix IE.

It is a web developer's job to ensure that a website works for its users. I agree it'd be nice to give IE users the finger, but for the vast majority of business cases, it's nowhere near realistic.

Re:Lol wut? (4, Insightful)

zenetik (750376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995599)

In the past, I would have agreed but now I'm not so sure. Microsoft may still hold the largest chunk of the OS pie, but I think it has lost considerable credibility with consumers. Failing to play by the rules has worked for Microsoft in the past, but I don't think that is going to work much longer. I think consumers are growing tired of spending money on inferior software and this discontentment will probably extend to Internet Explorer if it can't play by the rules. HTML 5 is supposed to eliminate competing standards so that everything can work off the same set of rules. For a developer, this is a godsend. No more developing standards compliant code and then having to write bad code in order to appease Internet Explorer. I expect we'll see a developer backlash against browsers that aren't compatible with the standards and this will translate to either Microsoft playing by the rules or watching its browser market share plummet.

Re:Lol wut? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995665)

The MSIE market share has been failing in big numbers lately. I wouldn't be so certain that the old truth is the same as the new truth.

That said, it is undeniable that MS will embrace and extend in ways that will break everyone else's implementation. One expectation is that they will implement the video functionality that, while officially removed from the HTML5 standard, will be implemented by everyone anyway. With that said, they will implement one of THEIR codecs that will not work "without a license." There is plenty of room for typical MS shenanigans when implementing HTML5, but you can bet they will not score any higher than 30 on the HTML5 acid test and that will be by design.

But if Microsoft's browser dominance falls below 50% any time soon, all bets are off -- they will not be able to afford to pull off a non-standard browser too well because the perception will then be "still broken" as web developers are increasingly free to build web sites using standards instead of MSIE idiosyncrasies in mind.

The fact is, it is getting increasingly popular to "rebel" against Microsoft right now. My prediction is that Microsoft will try and will fail in playing their "old game" and are in less of a position to change the rules as they have in the past.

Re:Lol wut? (2, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996039)

To me the really interesting question is this:
Suppose that the "good guys" win. There's a big bump in FF/Webkit usage and developers begin to drop support for IE (in its current, "this is how we do things here" incarnation). Does Microsoft have a plan B? Do they have a fast, competent, compliant, cross-platform browser stashed in the garage? They certainly have the manpower to pull it off (Visual Studio .NET is considered a miracle, even by FOSS advocates), but have they been working on something like that in the background, as an alternative, or will they have to start from scratch, and pretty much reallocate entire divisions to start machining a completely new browser?

Re:Lol wut? (2, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996333)

I don't think Microsoft is capable of competing without cheating. Their whole purpose with IE is to tie people to the OS. If they have to build a standards compliant browser then it defeats their purpose in having a browser in the first place. The entire point of "joining" the HTML5 process is to find a way to do the 3 E's. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Re:Lol wut? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28996083)

One expectation is that they will implement the video functionality that, while officially removed from the HTML5 standard, will be implemented by everyone anyway

<video> wasn't removed, having to support a specific codec was removed. So Microsoft would be well within their rights to pick the codec(s) they want to support. Just as the rest will (Mozilla will pick Theora, Apple will pick H.264, Google picks both).

Re:Lol wut? (3, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996187)

The video/audio tags have NOT been removed, their just wasn't a consensus on what codecs should be used, thus their is nothing specified about the codecs in the specs. You know what, that's exactly the same as for example the image-tag.

Video has *not* been removed from HTML5! (1)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996331)

... the video functionality that, while officially removed from the HTML5 standard, will be implemented by everyone anyway...

I really don't know where this urban legend started and why people believe it, since it's trivial to verify that <video> has never been removed from HTML5 [whatwg.org].

What has been (hopefully temporary) removed is the mention of Ogg Theora as baseline format since Apple and Microsoft haven't yet accepted to implement it (Safari supports it anyway with the XiphQT component [xiph.org] installed). OTOH, Mozilla, Google and Opera all support Ogg Theora (and Vorbis for audio) in their browsers (current of future versions), so apparently Theora is still the strongest candidate, altough Google may change this if they buy On2 and free the VP8 codec.

P.S.: sorry fanboys, H.264 is not an option: starting from 2011 websites with H.264 videos will have to pay an unspecified amount of money to the MPEG LA.

Re:Lol wut? (2, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995789)

Microsoft is on their way to miss the train. If they hadn't been catching up at all the web would have been running away from them and out of their control. They think that Silverlight is the solution to everything, but in reality it isn't.

That they finally takes interest means that they have started to worry about losing their advantage. And things can go extremely fast if someone succeeds in a solution that is the next killer app.

Re:Lol wut? (2, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996117)

Unless the established internet starts to roll against them. Youtube has already publicly dropped support for IE6. If the video tag of HTML5 is 25% more efficient than flash and can save them a bundle on bandwidth, I imagine they'd drop flash.

All it takes is a few big sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Gmail to say "We want HTML5, and we want it to work right." And anyone that comes along with a non-compliant browser gets pointed towards Safari, Chrome, Opera, or Firefox. IE9 will either adapt or die.

MS HTML5 (5, Insightful)

sskinnider (1069312) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995511)

It doesn't matter how long MS waited. They will just "extend" the standard and call all other implementations broken.

Re:MS HTML5 (4, Interesting)

ErkDemon (1202789) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995533)

Well, if they implement parts of it, drop other parts, add a few bits of their own and call the result "HTML 5.2", then I hope that the standards group sue them for misrepresentation.

Re:MS HTML5 (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996093)

The result will be called "OOHTML5", and the standards groups will be able to do nothing, apart from what they normally do: Let Microsoft sit in and influence (drag-and-delay) the standards meetings/discussions, and then when the conclusion is released, look at it and go "Huh? We never saw any of this... We must have been out with the flu that day or something. What's this 'addEventListener()' nonsense?' And all of these CSS se-lec-tors? Screw ya'll, we're going home".

Re:MS HTML5 (2, Funny)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995553)

They will just "extend" the standard and call all other implementations broken.

That's not so easy anymore; they have a fight against Google, Apple, the EU, Mozilla's momentum, etc.

For evidence, just look at their silverlight [youtube.com] adoption rates.

Re:MS HTML5 (2, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995757)

They already call XHTML 1.0 strict sites broken under IE 8. They cite "errors on the page" with yellow "!".

Re:MS HTML5 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995909)

They cite "errors on the page" with yellow "!".

Ah Microsoft, with their silent/invisible "rendering by this browser" after the word "page".

For this one, RTFA (5, Informative)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995535)

The usual journalistic nightmare of a summary.

They did not call header and footer arbitrary or unnecessary. They questioned the implementation as to validity for printing.

They did call aside arbitrary as well as section.

From reading the post, I see a lot of good insights into what might be an overly-cluttered and, in places, badly written standard. While there is always an element of Microsoft playing their own games, this does raise valid questions.

Re:For this one, RTFA (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995621)

Indeed, I completely agree with the comment about security risks of the bb tag, and indeed consider the suggested alternative better.

Re:For this one, RTFA (5, Informative)

colfer (619105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995657)

The Mozilla developer who posted a response on the list agreed strongly also.

Too Late, Hot Plate (2, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995681)

They could have raised these complaints a long time ago. There is a process for this and they chose to ignore it.

Here is what would happen if they were in process (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995811)

They would propose Windows only VC-1 to Video element, they would ask for "Windows style" development support, they would give up (!) some patents to W3C and give "community promise" or some junk when asked if they really mean it...

They aren't fun to watch anymore, we learned all their tricks thanks to their puppets/trojan coders in open source community.

Re:For this one, RTFA (1)

Spliffster (755587) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995707)

These could be valid complaints, Microsoft was always concerned about printing. So many people still print their Emails *shrugs* It it is true and Microsoft is really interested in implementing HTML5 then I am certain they do not see it as thread to their core business: windows and office. If so I guess their bets are on silverlight. -S

Re:For this one, RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28996119)

Here,here, Now if the post here on /. would tell the whole story (opps-truth) MSFT has been very quietly involved for a very long time. And yes they see the light about browser market share and standards compliance. So there will, of course, always be an element of self promotion. I find it odd, as usual, the hate for anything MSFT but very little about Apple's actions against Google and their respective anti-trust activies. But then again, /. people tend to be not only hypocritical but also disingenuous (opps, sorry for the big words) But then again, that is anacharists for you-narrow minded and hateful

AKA: delay tactics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995541)

That is all.

... In before the "lolwut?" (5, Interesting)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995549)

While everyone should keep an eye on Microsoft (*was always) this is generally a good thing for the Internet as a whole. We as consumers, and we as web-developers, alike will be a lot happier if all the major players can create a consistent experience.

If Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, and Apple are all on board before the spec' is even in the final stages we have a fairly good shot of similar behavour no matter the platform or browser.

A lot of Microsoft's "notes" on the HTML 5 spec are either - "This isn't detailed enough to implement concistently" or "Do we need this?" Both of which are fair questions to ask and something that others will want to answer before HTML 5 goes live.
 

Yeah but this is MS talking (0, Flamebait)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995587)

And MS does NOT play nice. Ever.

So while you might hope for a consistent experience MS has its own agenda. Burn this into your brain. MS NEVER PLAYS NICE.

Remember that story about MS donating code to linux under the GPL? Oh how nice they were, how they had turned around, how this was a new beginning.

Oops, no. Turns out that MS had used GPL code and they had to release their mods to stay compliant with the GPL. The fact that they tried to pretend they had different motives, makes everything they did questionable. So they did NOT release the code to improve interoperability, so what were there real motives for using GPL in the first place? (MS is more then capable enough to avoid using GPL code).

So, I ask myself what are MS real motives here? To improve HTML 5.0? Get clear exactly what they should implement? Nah. Delay? Possible. Make it less potent, possible. The point is, I do not know, but I do know from experience that whatever MS intrests are, working together for a greater future can't possible be it.

If MS is involved with HTML 5 then there are really only two options.

A: they realized that by staying out of it, even they risk loosing.

B: they hope by getting involved they can delay it until they can either make it their own somehow, someway, or just delay it for the sake of delay and hope it dies or that silverlight will have changed the web.

But whatever their reason, it ain't: lets make a better product for the future that everyone can use. It ain't the MS way. Never has, never will be.

Re:Yeah but this is MS talking (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995713)

Microsoft plays nice when it benefits them. And if HTML can pull off something to at least level the playing field with Flash, they will jump on board. They, of all people, don't like depending on someone else.

As a company, Microsoft is much too big to be completely, totally evil. Sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Video element is dead (1, Flamebait)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995783)

Ask anyone who is in web publishing business. You can't replace Flash just by putting some fancy tags and video tag which doesn't have h264 just because of political, fanatical reasons.

If MS thinks they will hit flash that way, they are dreaming. No matter what nerds think, Adobe or Flash isn't going anywhere especially if their rival wannabe is idiot enough to drop PPC support on OS X and provide no kind of design/develop support on OS X. Eclipse/Mono? Yea, right.

Re:Video element is dead (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995961)

Political, fanatical reasons? How about, they don't want to put h264 into the video element because it costs money?

Re:Video element is dead (1, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995979)

You can't replace Flash just by putting some fancy tags and video tag which doesn't have Theora just because of political, fanatical reasons.

Fixed that for you. As far as h264 goes, those are legal reasons.

Re:Video element is dead (4, Insightful)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996255)

Actually, most people would like to see a browser without the need for plugins, so no Flash, no Silverlight/Mono. Just the browser doing all in a way that the page around it can actually interact with it properly. So you can rotate video's and take snapshots and apply filters for the blind. Or have proper hinting about what it is (an object-tag placed by a javscript on the page isn't very clear to a screen reader in comparison to a video-tag) and control by the blind, because the browser has control of the video.

Re:Video element is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28996289)

ARM and the iphone comes to mind if looking for platforms without Flash-support. And these are quite important areas.
Flash for video is dead!

Re:Yeah but this is MS talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28996173)

Microsoft plays nice when it benefits them.

Not really. There's a corporate culture where using another company's software is considered a failure, and any real open source involvement would be a loss of face. NIH for the win.
Additionally an incredible arrogance towards the consumers combined with internal frictions can make them cripple their own products, see their music store DRM, Bing search results, Vista driver DRM, etc.

Re:... In before the "lolwut?" (3, Insightful)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995595)

Actually, the "lol wut" was the first post. You didn't quite make it.

That said, I've read the mailing list comments from the MS guy, and none of it seemed like unreasonable moaning. I agree that it's an excellent thing that MS is getting involved - IE's market share may be declining, but it's still the dominant browser, and I think MS is still capable of doing tremendous amounts of damage to emerging web standards if they refuse to support them.

Re:... In before the "lolwut?" (3, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995625)

Microsoft's "notes" on the HTML 5 spec are [...] "This isn't detailed enough to implement concistently"

Wow, I wonder [forums.scc.ca] where they got that from?

Admiral Ackbar says.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995551)

It's a trap!

brace yourself.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995557)

MSHTML 5 is coming.....

"We didnt like the standard so we improved on it"

Re:brace yourself.... (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995603)

Hypocrisy is great isn't it.

MS does it and its evil.

Someone else does it and geeks and fanboys are happy as a pig in shit about it.

What do you think Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) has done? They largely ignored HTML5 until it started going their way. Then the standard moved towards their work. So its okay because Mozilla does it, but not when MS does it? Grow up fanboy.

Re:brace yourself.... (1, Troll)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995753)

Did a single MS browser except the Mac IE which runs a different engine support the stable standards of the day it was released without 'extending and embracing' it?

Do you call that poster fanboy? I call you a paid MS puppet.

Re:brace yourself.... (2)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995769)

Did a single MS browser except the Mac IE which runs a different engine support the stable standards of the day it was released without 'extending and embracing' it?

So are you claiming that Firefox/Netscape/etc have always been 100% standards compliant and furthermore, did not include any features that were NOT part of standards? Please clarify.

Do you call that poster fanboy? I call you a paid MS puppet.

Why would you call him a "paid MS puppet" ?

Re:brace yourself.... (4, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995803)

Firefox, Opera, Safari will show a standards compliant page in its all glory with complete functionality. If they don't, file a bug report. I can guarantee you it will be the second important issue to fix after a critical security flaw.

Opera 10 passes the very aggressive Acid 3 test, what are you talking about? Do you know how many millions of lines, manpower wasted just to make sites designed for their junk browser appear fine on those browsers?

About the MS puppets... Slashdot user for a long time here, we know who is who and all their tricks.

Re:brace yourself.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995857)

lol

Re:brace yourself.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995941)

Firefox, Opera, Safari will show a standards compliant page in its all glory with complete functionality. If they don't, file a bug report. I can guarantee you it will be the second important issue to fix after a critical security flaw.

No you can't. FF ignores bug reports all the time.

And, before all you fan boys wet your pants, why not actually READ the article? The summary (as usual) is a blatent misrepresentation, almost all of it a misinterpretation or out-and-out nonsense. Is this a KDawson story?

Re:brace yourself.... (2, Interesting)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995875)

Why would you call him a "paid MS puppet" ?

Because obviously anyone that disagrees is being paid off.

Re:brace yourself.... (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995897)

It is worth noticing that MS seems to be the last to support a given standard, even once it's recognized as a standard -- they'd rather come out with their own competing "standard".

Case in point: OOXML. ODF works well, and could conceivably be extended to match the capabilities of MS Office. Instead, Microsoft launched a competing, far worse standard -- one nearly impossible for a competitor to implement completely -- and rammed it through Ecma and ISO so that it would be called a "standard", even if it currently has zero compliant implementations (MS Office manages to screw up its own "standard").

Now, I'm not "happy as a pig in shit" when others do similar things. I'm no fan of Apple, for example -- in particular, the iPhone's restrictions disgust me. On the other hand, I do hold Microsoft to a higher standard, as they still have over 80% of the browser marketshare -- meaning if Mozilla implements a standard, and Microsoft doessn't, that standard is pretty much useless to me unless I'm willing to tell 80% of my users to go home.

Re:brace yourself.... (1)

3247 (161794) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996369)

Actually, ODF only works well as long as you use OpenOffice.org. OOXML works well as long as you use Microsoft Office. If you start using other applications, you'll lose formattings.
So the difference is just that OOo is open source, whereas MS Office isn't.

Re:brace yourself.... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996195)

What do you think Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) has done? They largely ignored HTML5 until it started going their way. Then the standard moved towards their work. So its okay because Mozilla does it, but not when MS does it? Grow up fanboy.

I hope this is just a simple mistake. WhatWG created HTML5. W3C ignored it and was pushing XHTML2 and XForms until they realized HTML5 was where the action was, and officially accepted it. Note btw. that WhatWG is run by browser implementers, while W3C is more broad.

Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (3, Insightful)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995579)

Seriously, does anyone other than a first time Windows user actaully use IE for serious/prolonged web sessions?

Between Firefox, Opera and Safari, is IE still being used to any great extent?

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (2, Informative)

Tiles (993306) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995609)

Depends on who you want to believe. [hitslink.com]

A recent Digg poll [digg.com] showed that many people are incapable of escaping using Internet Explorer i.e. on closed systems or at work, so it's no surprise IE still has as lingering percentage of marketshare.

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (5, Interesting)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995685)

Chrome does not install in /programs, so it can be installed in machines at work with ease; kind of a big FU from google to MS and IT departments. I wish the installers for all other browsers followed suit.

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995829)

You can install it, but it's often against company IT policy...

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995639)

Yes, most people are using IE, but as a general rule, no one actually knows any IE users (workplace use aside).

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995749)

Yes in the corporate world, if you work for a large Bank or other corporation you will most likely be using IE

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (4, Informative)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995779)

Still account for at least more than 60% of users, no matter what source of statistics you use. I know for a fact, as a web developer, that if anything is wrong in a page when rendered on IE, our clients would notice instantly and file that as a bug in my code, not IE's code.

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (1)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995865)

Still account for at least more than 60% of users, no matter what source of statistics you use.

Wrong. This depends heavily on the site focus. User location makes a difference as well. Go check W3Schools stats and see for yourself: their numbers for IE are below 40% (a single number might not be impressive or usable for just about anything, but the change certainly is: IE fell from 90% to 40% in six years).

The rest of your comment still stands of course.

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (1)

r0b!n (1009159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995793)

Unfortunately, in many locked down corporate environments, there is no alternative browser installed.

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995907)

While Firefox may be competitive in some environments, IE certainly gets a much bigger market share than Opera, Safari, and Chrome.

If you're going to dismiss IE's input, why bother taking anybody's?

- RG>

Re:Does anyone actually USE IE anymore? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996207)

Seriously, does anyone other than a first time Windows user actaully use IE for serious/prolonged web sessions?

Sure, when you're using intranet web pages that only support IE because they're hosted on Microsoft's pseudo-wiki.

Reasonable concerns, albeit late in the game (2, Insightful)

Tiles (993306) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995591)

As Microsoft will be one of the foremost implementers of HTML5 (with IE still having a majority of the market share, unfortunately) it's a very good thing that Microsoft has decided to become involved in the spec rather than leaving it up to its competitors, giving it some notion of responsibility in how the spec turns out.

It seems some of the comments are looking for simple justification (such as why the >aside< tag exists, use cases, etc.) as well as more clear definitions of other new features (including their very own original contentEditable feature), and rather than "influence the spec" as the summary claims, it looks like the IE team is looking critically at how a completely new entity would approach HTML5 (not having had the vested involvement other browser makers have).

What remains to be seen, however, is if the IE team responds to the working group's justification and follows through on the spec, or if it only trusts its own judgment and implements the parts it deems "necessary". This is still the dogged-slow Microsoft team, and in spite of great improvements in IE7 and IE8, reporting issues in the spec during the Last Call stage is not an encouraging insight to their commitment to making HTML5 happen.

Re:Reasonable concerns, albeit late in the game (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995835)

The latest numbers I saw show MSIE of all versions combined at 66% where Firefox is over 25%. While Microsoft is still "the majority" by large amounts, this is not an election where only one winner is selected. Microsoft's position at the top isn't as significant at the size of the minority remainder which is about 34%. Long ago, when Microsoft commanded over 95%, nearly everything else was negligible. When it fell to 90%, developers started to take notice and to design for that 10% as well as for MSIE while some still remained MSIE only. But now the minority is too large to ignore. If you were running a business, would you feel comfortable alienating 5% of your customers? Maybe... but 10%? What about 33%? Ah, so you can see why MSIE's lead isn't as important a the size of the minority.

Re:Reasonable concerns, albeit late in the game (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996071)

Plus, most developers are ignoring IE6, so I'd say Microsoft has a much smaller share of the REAL internet browser pie. If you ignore browsers that are in locked down environments anyway (which probably won't be going to your content-rich site less they risk being fired), then Microsoft doesn't really have that much of a stranglehold anymore. And certainly in the mobile space which is growing rapidly, they are being ignored left and right (no one really codes for Mobile IE when developing a mobile site anymore, it's all about Webkit).

<keygen> tag (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995679)

Who knew there was a <keygen> tag? And that MS has a better one? Apparently IE has supported <keygen> all along, based on Netscape's invention, but will drop it in Windows 7.

Hi Microsoft.... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995687)

welcome to 2001

Haven't tracked HTML5... but... (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995689)

MS definitely did a poor job of tracking the standards effort. Getting changes they want is unlikely. There is definitely the appearance and likelihood of MS just trying to impede the standard because every other major browser producer is way ahead of them on HTML5, and the features contained therein are a huge threat to IE. If Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari all support HTML5 and can give better video and interactive without Flash (and notably Silverlight), then Web devs may find it worth it to leave IE out of their support efforts to get out of having to use proprietary technologies with more cumbersome licensing circumstances.

That said, generally they have some points. Many of these tags to me seem analogous to ,, and similar tags from HTML that are widely regarded as a poor idea to use in the age of style sheets. The philosophy widely espoused with regard to modern web development is to separate content from presentation (much like much GUI application design philosophies). Many of the tags MS mentions seem to go against that design philosophy.

Some other criticisms are not along those lines (i.e. they don't question the validity of some tags, just if they are 'as valid' as other tags that could have been added with it. These criticisms seem a little more hollow at times without much substance.

Re:Haven't tracked HTML5... but... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996025)

Web devs may find it worth it to leave IE out of their support efforts to get out of having to use proprietary technologies with more cumbersome licensing circumstances.

Unfortunately, this isn't likely to happen.

A small website is likely to want all the traffic they can get, so they'll have to support IE in some form. The best they could do is progressive degradation -- a <video> tag that gets replaced with a Flash object if the browser doesn't support html5. But a small website isn't likely to have resources to burn creating and supporting an entirely separate player. I know, I was part of one -- html5 was always something I wanted to do, but we ended up going with Flash because social networking sites (Facebook, Myspace, etc) would just accept a Flash object -- we even had the entire player (all the controls, etc) done in HTML/AJAX with just a flash player component, and then it was swapped out for a pure Flash widget.

A large website might be able to take this risk -- after all, some fairly large websites have embraced Silverlight, which requires at least a download for most users. I don't see forcing a browser upgrade as any more intrusive than forcing users to install a plugin. Unfortunately, the kind of corporations behind such websites are typically much more risk-averse. They can afford the Flash licensing fees, and it'll Just Work, already has a thousand times before, so why would they try something new?

My only real hope for something like this would be somebody both huge and innovative -- say, Google -- doing this with something that people won't be willing to miss -- say, YouTube. It's possible that if YouTube required an HTML5-compliant browser, that browser marketshare would shift massively in favor of Firefox, Chrome, etc. It's also possible that this would drive people to Google's competitors (Vimeo, Viddler, etc), or drive people away from online video entirely -- I don't think that outcome is likely, but Google is getting too big to take that risk. And keep in mind, Google tends to play nice with others, to the point of re-encoding all their videos to h.264 just so they'd be easier to play on the iPhone, so I doubt they'd be as ready to flip the bird to Microsoft as I'd like them to be.

widely regarded as a poor idea to use in the age of style sheets. The philosophy widely espoused with regard to modern web development is to separate content from presentation (much like much GUI application design philosophies).

Well, you forgot to escape your tags, so I can't actually see which ones you're talking about. But as an example, I still use things like <ul>, <blockquote>, and <dl>... I could go on. And while <b> might be bad form, <em> still makes sense.

Yes, we want to separate content from presentation, but the content itself should still be meaningful, and so should the tags surrounding it.

If I want an unordered list of stuff, I use <ul>. I may use CSS to replace the bullets with images, even remove the bullets altogether and re-style the list items as paragraphs, but if it's truly an unsorted list, the <ul> tag makes sense. Using these makes life easier for lynx users, screenreaders, scrapers/robots, and basically anyone who isn't viewing your content together with your stylesheet -- indeed, taken to an extreme, HTML could actually be used as a decent API (rather than JSON or XML).

This reminds me.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995745)

Hear me out here....

I used to work with this horrible lady. No matter what was going on in the office, she would stick her nose in it. Many times she would look over my shoulder at some page I was coding or graphic design I was working on and say "can you make that a little bigger?" or "I don't like that color" (keep in mind, this woman was an accountant that had no business even coming into my area). Pretty much every suggestion she had was terrible ("no, I won't change the colors to yellow text on a black background").

The reason she did this was so that she could say that she had a hand in _____ project and because of all the projects that she was involved in, the company couldn't survive without her helping out everywhere.

The day we fired her we had an office wide party.

I say this because I get the feeling that this is what Microsoft is doing here. The spec is pretty much done. Rather than jump in at the beginning and really making a difference (thankfully they didn't, mind you), they're instead looking over someone's shoulder and saying "ooooo can you change that to Times New Roman?".

When its finally released MS's PR machine will say "Co-designed by Microsoft".

Tag you're it Microsoft (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995781)

Microsoft is the last one standing when it comes to the browser musical chairs... how exactly is their browser relevant anymore? Who uses it? WTF? Why?

Video and Audio tags are very cool. Get OGGed and Theora'd out Msie.

Get with HTML5 Msie!

Point of HTML (4, Informative)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995851)

HTML is a markup language. It tells the browser "this is a paragraph" or "this is important".

Telling the browser that the top section of a website (Slashdot's tab bar) or the bottom (the search bar, quote, copyright, and links at the bottom) is exactly the sort of thing the browser should know. Screen readers would, in particular, benefit from this; most people don't need to hear the header or footer on every page.

Unnecessary? Sure - websites do fine without it. But telling the browser more about the page is a Good Thing.

Re:Point of HTML (3, Informative)

tonycheese (921278) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996077)

The summary part about header and footer seems to be wrong. When the Microsoft employee was criticizing these tags, he said

"header"/"footer" don't appear to indicate anything about printing that might reasonably be expected from those terms.

The word "arbitrary" seems to come from this line:

"aside" seems very arbitrary.

So... (1, Funny)

botik32 (90185) | more than 4 years ago | (#28995853)

So, they come late to the party, call the lead singer titless, and puke on the birthday cake.

So unlike the old Microsoft : )

Where are all the MS astroturfers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28995957)

I notice that at weekends there are fewer MS astroturfers out and about. Why would that be?

Microsoft and standards. (1)

TiberiusMonkey (1603977) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996153)

I feel that it's always "finally" with Microsoft lately, they finally make a kind of secure OS, they finally follow this or that standard. It's annoying to hear people tell me Vista/7 is more secure than something like OSX, waving Pwn2Own around, when Microsoft have spent the last few decades ignoring standards and treating security as a very very afterthought. Seriously, if Microsoft worked to standards instead of coding something that works in some form or another and then expecting THAT to be the standard the computing world would be a lot better off.

What the European Union should do (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996193)

Neelie Kroes should demand that at the time of start-up, Microsoft lists the various browsers in any order Microsoft pleases, followed by HTML5 standard compliant or Not HTML 5 standard compliant

Bert

Microsuck is not really wrong here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28996227)

As much as I hate them, M$ is proving the point, once again, that nothing good can come from early adoption of an unfinished standard. This is the exact thing that made it a nightmare to write HTML in the late 90's and early 2000's. It's just recently gotten to the point where one can expect IE8, FF and Safari to do *almost* the same thing with respect to HTML, Javascript and CSS. The fact that M$ doesn't like parts of the spec underlines, once again, that acceptance and participation from the major players is just as important to the process as writing the spec. M$ should be able to influence the spec ... the thing is not going to be finalized for at least 5 years.

mindset ... (2, Funny)

Big Jojo (50231) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996251)

We're not sure this is the right design to be encouraging given that it wasn't in HTML 4.01.

I'm not sure that is the right thought process to be applying, given that HTML 5 is supposed to extend HTML 4.01 ... regardless of the specific feature in question. One hopes that's just a really rushed/broken edit artifact, not a real reflection of what they think.

I could believe many of their comments are appropriate, but it's worrisome to see one like that escaping orbit.

Too many unrelated comments in one post (3, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996321)

Adrian Bateman did himself and his team a disservice by putting so many unrelated comments into a single post. Yes they are all related to HTML 5 but then again the mailing list itself is about HTML 5 so the context is set and individual posts should be scoped more narrowly. The end result is that the list lacks priority and appears that each of the comments/feedback sections have the same priority when they really do not.

They bring up some interesting thoughts about a few of the tags/implementations but these are lost in the general negativity of the post.

Additionally some of their comments seem to be focused on unrelated topics such as how the header and footer elements should be handled when printing... ??? as if they are expecting the header and footer to be placed at the top of each printed page in a multi-page print out of a web page. While interesting as a topic of discussion this should not be lumped in with other comments as it is obviously a very low priority for a specification dealing with digital media primarily.

Add to this that they had previously stated that the header and footer elements appear to be unnecessary and I as a reader am left wondering which statement is more important - either they are unnecessary or they are useful but not as useful unless they implement something to do with printing the document... pick a stance Adrian. You can't state conflicting opinions like this and hope to be taken seriously.

So my suggestion for Adrian Bateman is to break up your feedback into more narrowly scoped questions so that they can be responded to in the priority they deserve. I can only think that your intent was to force others to do this work for you and thereby discover what others felt were the priority items to discuss or to set off a generally chaotic discussion of issues and thereby create dissension within the group, bringing up old concerns that have been discussed at length long ago and resolved or agreed to already.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...