Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Rivals Mock Microsoft's 'Native HTML5' Claims

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the framing-the-narrative dept.

The Internet 211

CWmike writes "Mozilla and Opera are mocking browser rival Microsoft's use of the term 'native HTML5' to describe Internet Explorer 9 and the in-development IE10 as an oxymoron, an attempt to hijack an open standard and a marketing ploy. On Tuesday, Microsoft's Dean Hachamovitch, the executive who runs the IE group, used the term several times during a keynote at MIX, the company's annual Web developers conference, and in an accompanying post on the IE blog. Hachamovitch claimed in his keynote that, 'The only native experience of the Web of HTML5 today is on Windows 7 with IE9.' Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, replied mockingly in Bugzilla: 'I'm pretty sure Firefox 5 has "complete native HTML5" support. We should resolve this as fixed and be sure to let the world know we beat Microsoft to shipping *complete* native HTML5.'"

cancel ×

211 comments

yeah (0)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830816)

Make those Microsoft jackasses pay!

Or let them have this one, idk.

Re:yeah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830876)

Let them have it.

Honestly, I thought Microsoft's attempts to destroy the web used to be a terrible thing, but since seeing the utter violent ass raping of a mess Mozilla, Apple etc. at WHATWG have made of web standards with HTML5 it's become pretty obvious Microsoft are actually the lesser of two fuck ups.

Re:yeah (0)

julss (2042228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831024)

How exactly are they "destroying" the web here? This is what he said

IE10 continues on IE9’s path, directly using what Windows provides and avoiding abstractions, layers, and libraries that slow down your site and your experience

And I think that's quite much the truth. Firefox uses all kinds of libraries between, like the whole XUL thing that makes the interface feel slow compared to other applications that use Windows API directly.
He is also probably talking about native hardware support for HTML5 elements that can be done faster that way. I personally use Opera and they're having hardware rendering coming, but it's still not finished. Firefox doesn't have such at all.

I think the word native is used like it should be - the browser is designed for the OS it runs on and uses it features directly. None of the other browsers do that, because they have to support linux and mac and other OS too.

Re:yeah (4, Informative)

crazycheetah (1416001) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831248)

http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/11/22/direct2d-hardware-rendering-a-browser [basschouten.com]

I would say Firefox has hardware rendering, and has it for a while (that blog post I linked to is from 2009 and they were far enough to get performance stats). "Firefox doesn't have such at all" is totally incorrect...

Re:yeah (0)

julss (2042228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831498)

You're right, seems like they finally added the hardware acceleration support in 4.0 release a month ago.

Re:yeah (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830982)

whatever happened to the Java killer? wasn't it called J# or something like that? I think that microsoft needs to fall in line with the rest of the world. lol

Re:yeah (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831010)

whatever happened to the Java killer? wasn't it called J# or something like that? I think that microsoft needs to fall in line with the rest of the world. lol

It's called C#. It's not killing Java, but it's certainly doing well. And why does one platform have to "kill" another to be successful?

Re:yeah (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831040)

No, it was called J# [wikipedia.org] .

Re:yeah (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831506)

I know about J#. I don't believe it was intended to be a Java killer.

Re:yeah (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831806)

You guys talking about J++ [wikipedia.org] , maybe?

Re:yeah (2)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831074)

You should ask M$ that question.

Re:yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831216)

If I remember correctly, didn't Microsoft attempt to extend Java to make it work more natively with Windows, but then had their implementation sued out of existence?

And then they created C#, since Oracle (or SUN?) essentially took their ball and went home.

Re:yeah (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831360)

No, they extended it to make it not interoperability with the real Java, with the intention of removing any sort of portability. They then had to settle with sun and using the patents they licensed as part of this settlement created C#.

Re:yeah (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831294)

It looks like VMware is using it. I installed their client software yesterday and part of the installer routine had to install J# first.

Re:yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831440)

His name is Larry Ellison.

MIcrosoft has gone native... (5, Funny)

aapold (753705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830836)

I think what they mean is they are employing natives in third world countries to write their HTML.

Re:Microsoft has gone native... support! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831434)

Having trouble with your HTML 5? Then call now! Natives are standing by!

Indeed, what bunch of assholes (-1, Troll)

madradioctiverat1 (2042246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830838)

Look, IE9 still gets 70 on Acid3 [tinyurl.com] ....
No other browser scores that low.
They should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: goat link, don't click (2)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830866)

n/t

Re: goat link, don't click (1, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830964)

Who found a way to monetize goatse at this late date?

If we got half the effort of that campaign on real stuff we'd all have better software by now.

Re:Indeed, what bunch of assholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831604)

You c*nt

Re:Indeed, what bunch of assholes (2)

fredclown (878276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831836)

That is because the Acid tests DO NOT test standards. They test fringe cases and in some cases test parts that have since been removed from the spec or nobody uses. It wastes time to develop solely to pass the Acid tests. What is more helpful is to build your browser to standards, which IE8 and IE9 are (they don't support all standards ... nobody does ... but what they do support is supported well), and one you get the standards built in all of these fringe case test will naturally fall into line. You could build IE to pass Acid 3 and still have a crappy browser that the only thing it can do well is pass the Acid test.

Yeah, how dare they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830856)

"Mozilla and Opera are mocking browser rival Microsoft's use of the term 'native HTML5' to describe Internet Explorer 9 and the in-development IE10 as an oxymoron, an attempt to hijack an open standard and a marketing ploy."

As if Mozilla, Opera, Google, and Apple *aren't* just going off and doing their own things while using the label as a marketing ploy?

Re:Yeah, how dare they? (1)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831346)

Even the W3C uses HTML5 as a marketing ploy. How else do you think upper-management will ever back the adoption of standards? They need to be marketed to since they don't know how to read.

Not intended to be a factual statement... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830858)

I'm sure that like the statement about Planned Parenthood that Senator Kyle (R - Flyover State) made, Microsoft's claim to having the only browser with "Native HTML 5 Support" was not intended to be a factual statement.

Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1, Informative)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830872)

Still grumbling about pages that passed the w3c validater, looked beautiful in Mozilla, Opera, and Konqueror and I had to redo them because of IE.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (-1, Troll)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830992)

I suspect thats mostly because you're bad at web development. Honestly, in this day and age if you have issues with IE that can't be fixed with a quick little work around for the feature you're using, you're doing it wrong. I won't say its compliant, but there are billions of nice solutions out there now for getting IE to work. In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831094)

Counter attack.

I said Mozilla, as in the suite, so I wasn't referring to "in this day and age".

Also, I was writing my website in VIM, and I was using Cascading Style Sheets, I had the W3 site up and was referencing it constantly to make sure I was writing my HTML properly. It's probably been 8 years since the time I was talking about, doesn't mean I don't still hold a grudge against IE for that and other reasons.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (0)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831166)

That wasn't an attack! An attack would have been something like "You're an idiot, there is no way to do [obscure feature] in IE but its not documented anywhere!" This was more of a perry. Obviously IE6 had a ton of problems that were huge time wasters, so I understand still being angry. However people that complain about needing to support IE now really don't have much of a reason to complain anymore. Yeah, its still different but its getting close, and most people know it is different and provide handy ways to get around its limitations. The "IE is killing the internet" days are pretty much coming to an end.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831276)

IE6 was extremely compliant in its day.

The standards have changed but the browser has not.
IE6 was better at webstandards than what Mozilla was in the day, Netscape.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

fredclown (878276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831852)

Amen. So many forget this.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

riegel (980896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831302)

smelch said:

In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.

smelch follows up:

That wasn't an attack!

No additional comment is necessary

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831322)

pecosdave said:

Counter attack.

In response smelch said:

That wasn't an attack!

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

riegel (980896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831448)

Gothcha, makes perfect sense now. I was amused as I read it initially. I understand what you were saying now. Thats the problem with written communication sometimes we misread what others are saying.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (2)

riegel (980896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831254)

I suspect thats mostly because you're bad at web development. ... In no way is this a defense of Microsoft, its just an attack on you.

Actually, you are wrong and misdirecting your attack. If a browser vendor wants to boast HTML5 compliance then it is completely fair to ask about compliance with previous iterations of the HTML standard.

And yes you can have w3c compliant html that fails miserably in IE. Competent web developers can/will, and do cajole their code to work correctly in IE. That doesn't mean as you state, that the code in its original incarnation was wrong or the developer was incompetent. It simply means he had to tweak his/her code to comply with a non-compliant web browser. And many including myself do that begrudginly because so many people use an depend on said non-compliant browser.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831420)

He said he had to redo the pages. I'm not misdirecting my attack. If I had a designer who had a layout that worked great in Chrome and Firefox then they had to scrap it and redo the whole thing for IE I would kick them in the jimmy. Being a good [any profession] isn't about doing everything by the book, its about knowing the pitfalls, seeing them coming, and working around them. Knowing all the quirks of all the browsers is part of the job. The subject is for them to implement 3 and 4 correctly. Largely they have, or are at least as close as some of the othe browsers that get almost no heat for when they break the standard. Where they haven't, others have worked around. If you're rewriting pages because you can't get them to work in IE then you probably fucked up.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831482)

Would it blow your limited mind less if I would have wrote "rewrote tags and lines on pages" instead of "rewrote pages"?

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (0)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831540)

Hey man, that's mean. My mind is infinite. I thought you were talking present day though, and those kinds of "rewrite the page just for IE" complaints are outdated. No offense intended, slugger. Without sarcasm I can probably say you're better at writing HTML and CSS than I am, but then again I'm one of those bad web developers I was talking about. When my designer friends show me there work I'm always shit my pants with how readable and simple their HTML/CSS is. I don't know how they do it.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831614)

Honestly, I'm not the greatest. I haven't wrote pages in quite a while, that was mostly a learning exercise that I did it all in Vim using W3C. I edit a little source from time to time, but when I have to bust out a static page for whatever reason, which isn't often, I usually download SeaMonkey and use the editor in that. (Last time I used it there was beautiful compliant code)

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (2)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831524)

Clearly you've never done any real web development, or you would have never said something so asinine. When you make a website, you have to make two: One for IE and one for everyone else. This was especially true with ie6. IE7 and IE8 are somewhat better but they still don't come close to being on par with the other browser makers.

The only 'quick little work around' is to use a tool that deals with these problems on your behalf. The parent was (rightfully) bemoaning the fact that you are adding a minimum of an additional 50% to your development effort just to make it work properly in IE. This is an accurate statement. I've seen web shops that charge an premium for IE support just because it's so annoying.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831600)

If I were you I would update my skills a little. The HTML/CSS I've seen for cross browser sites usually ends up being just a little different CSS for some specific stylings. Just crap a little bit of <!--[if lt IE 7 ]><link rel="stylesheet/less" href="/css/ie6.css"><![endif]--> in there, use the ie6.css to adjust the styling for IE 6 and you're done. Bingo bango. Sure its a little more work, but 50%? Come on.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831032)

either you *chose* to redo them because if IE, or you had to redo them because your boss told you to... :p

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831060)

You are accurate. At the time I chose to fix them because so many people were on IE. Now IE users can just suck it. Of course newer versions of IE actually work better, so whatever, if I write something I'm not testing it in IE but it will probably work now.

Re:Great, now implement 3 and 4 properly. (1)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831574)

No don't destroy the true native HTML 5 experience!

The native experience you can only feel while surfing the web with IE9 on Windows 7.

Native? Complete? (4, Insightful)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830904)

Of course there's no such thing as complete HTML5 either since it's still a draft.

Re:Native? Complete? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830958)

Which is why this article is tagged humor :D

Re:Native? Complete? (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831016)

Didn't they just give up finishing it entirely? HTML5 and 4G have pretty much been defined as "more better than the last version".

Re:Native? Complete? (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831280)

Nothing gets past you except maybe sarcasm.

Re:Native? Complete? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831452)

More than that, they completely dropped the "5". Now there are no versions for it, making it a frankenstein spec.

Or rather, officially putting the stamp on its already existing status as a frankenstein spec and admitting that they'll never manage to agree on it so why bother?

Embrace, extend and extinguish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830934)

Embrace, extend and extinguish... plain and simple

Not supporting other OS is cool! (3, Insightful)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830956)

"Web sites and HTML5 run best when they run natively, on a browser optimized for the operating system on your device," said Hachamovitch. "We built IE9 from the ground up for HTML5 and for Windows to deliver the most native HTML5 experience and the best Web experience on Windows".

Translation: IE only runs in Windows, so it's better. In fact, IE is so native that it doesn't support Webgl. Take that, Firefox and Chrome!

Re:Not supporting other OS is cool! (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831018)

Well duh..... If it's not D3D then it's not "native". We all know that OpenGL is a hacked version of D3D.

Maybe MS is right? (-1, Troll)

slashbackslash (2042258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830960)

You know they are smart at being assholes. Look, their ODF implementation in Office actually meets the word of the standard, yet can't open any file created by OO [tinyurl.com]

Mission Accomplished! (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830968)

Meanwhile, Firefox remains the red headed stepchild to Microsoft because money talks.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (0)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831104)

Also it sucks. If you want a real browser use Chrome. Firefox is god awful. The ranking of browsers should be Chrome first, then Firefox, then IE8+, all other browsers, then Safari.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831262)

Sorry you are wrong. Firefox wins the contest and the others do not even finish the race. For the simple fact that vimperator only exists for firefox. Sure they are some VIM like keyboard input plugins for chrome, but they do not make the browser modal nor do they remove all the menus and such.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831414)

Yes, because clearly the wider market of users absolutely need " VIM like keyboard input plugins" ;rolleyes:

Re:Mission Accomplished! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831814)

While I'm also a Firefox (Iceweasel) and Vimperator user, you might want to try uzbl [uzbl.org] , it supports VIM and Emacs-like UI/keybindings but uses the Webkit engine.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (1)

riegel (980896) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831390)

Actually the ordering you promulgate indicates a bias. Chrome and Safari should be in close proximity to each other as they are both based on the same underlying technology. I love them both.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (2)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831456)

I know they have the same underlying engine, but here's my problem with Safari: It runs so slowly when not on OSX. So my non-OSX bias is in fact showing. To be honest, the only reason its at the bottom is because Chrome will render almost 100% identical to each other every time and Chrome is so much lighter on resource consumption. It makes Safari kind of useless.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (2)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831580)

I agree that Safari in windows is a completely different experience then safari on OSX. On OSX I use Safari exclusively. On Windows I use a mix of Firefox and Chrome.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831844)

They use different Javascript engines, though. V8 and Nitro, respectively.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831768)

The ranking of browsers should be Chrome first, then Opera, then Safari, then Firefox, then IE8+, then all other browsers.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831904)

How about this: Chrome first, then all the other browsers.

Re:Mission Accomplished! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831914)

The ranking of browsers should be one random Webkit browser first, then Firefox, then IE8+, all other browsers, then another random Webkit browser.

Yah, that makes total sense.

important update (2)

netdigger (847764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35830978)

So microsoft is calling the update to IE9 an important update. lol

"Most native"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35830994)

As the article points out, what the heck does "native HTML5" even *mean*? And if you try to make some sense of it, "native" is not what you want in a cross-platform standard anyway.

Maybe he misread or mistranscribed the prepared text that meant to say "naive HTML5" instead of "native HTML5"? :-)

Re:"Most native"? (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831268)

... what the heck does "native HTML5" even *mean*?

Well, I took it to mean the obvious: IE9's HTML-rendering code is written in machine code. Not java, not C#, not C, not even assembly language; they wrote it as a string of hex bytes.

I wouldn't be surprised ...

Re:"Most native"? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831368)

Obviously, native means that it comes with the computer and you don't have to download it...

Re:"Most native"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831862)

Native means that the DOM is composited on the GPU.

Native means that video is hardware-accelerated.

Native means that Javascript is compiled to machine code for execution, rather than interpreted.

Most surprising news ever! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831022)

Vendor claims their product is better then other similar products from other vendors.

Other vendors disagree!

Full story at 11!

Are you kidding? (-1, Troll)

slashcom (2042270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831038)

Their browser still gets 70 on acid3 test [tinyurl.com] .
No other browser (even a 2 year old firefox scores 86) scores that low.
They should be ashamed of themselves.

Re:Are you kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831120)

GOATSE !

Re:Are you kidding? (1, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831158)

Uh you know you can change any tinyurl.com/whatever link to preview.tinyurl.com/whatever to see where it's going right?

You're washed up. A has-been. Go home with what dignity you have left.

Um, wtf? (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831062)

How can anyone, whether Mozilla or MS claim their product has or will soon have complete support for HTML5 when HTML5 is still a draft (subject to change) and it will remain a draft at least for a couple of years?

Targeted advertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831078)

Haven't native american's suffered enough?

MS knows how to implement standards... (-1, Troll)

slashcom1 (2042276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831116)

Look, their ODF implementation in Office actually meets the word of the standard [goo.gl] , yet can't open any file created by OO

Just give me my text-shadows already, damnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831134)

Somewhat dismayed to find that even the IE10 preview still doesn't support this, it's like the last thing that makes IE appear slightly differently than every other modern browser. Hope it'll still make it into the final. I don't want to have to choose between using images for my titles or having them look so.. plain :|

Firefox 5? (1)

yoghurt (2090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831160)

Are they shipping Firefox 5 now? It may have "native HTML 5" whatever that is, but if it ain't shipping then how does Mozilla ship a native HTML 5 browser?

Re:Firefox 5? (1)

jwegman (228147) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831906)

Thank you. The current version of FireFox is 4. It was just released a couple of weeks ago. Sorry, but beta doesn't count here.

Are you kidding? (-1, Troll)

slashboxing (2042282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831162)

Their browser still gets 70 on acid3 test [tinyurl.com] No other browser (even a 2 year old firefox scores 86) scores that low. They should be ashamed of themselves.

ACID-moment for HTML5! (1)

ciantic (626550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831182)

ACID-moment for HTML5? Promote http://html5test.com/ [html5test.com] in these big screens to undermine Microsofts statements.

130 + 5 bonus points from IE9

291 + 13 bonus points from Chrome 12.0.733.0 dev

Though I'd like to see DirectWrite support for Chrome too (just like in Firefox5 and IE9).

Re:ACID-moment for HTML5! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831300)

Wow. 155 + 4 bonus points for Firefox 3.6.16 (on Windows 7)

Way to go, IE9.

Who are they trying to fool? (2)

frank_carmody (1551463) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831198)

When they say stuff like this, what's the point?

Consumers don't know what html5 is and even if they did they wouldn't care. And developers, etc. know what they're saying is lies. So it's a lose-lose type of comment.

Re:Who are they trying to fool? (1)

robus (852325) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831292)

It's for CIOs - how think they should care *and* actually know nothing.

Re:Who are they trying to fool? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831358)

Where the presentation was made, it was pointless, or even a "lose".

But for the average web-goer, if they saw a chart like:
IE___________| Other__________
Native HTML5 | No Native HTML5

They go "ooh" the background in that box is green, the other is red... go with green, doesn't really matter if it's factual or not.

Sales weasle speak 101 (4, Funny)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831734)

You don't get it. IE is far superior from a technological point of view, because it leverages the native source console features of the HTML 5 api to produce superior page state management and rasterization of dynamic content streams. The convergent meta-buffering features alone, make IE far more optimized for modern greb-drizle frazzle dazzle alacazam gibblety gobbilty goo. Don't try to fight the marketing droids with reason. You cannot win.

Native HTML5 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831202)

Reminds of this set of speakers I purchased a while back. It says right on the box, "Now with enhanced MP3 support!".

Sad thing is, I saw someone reading the box who got all excited because all they had were MP3s.

Re:Native HTML5 (2)

Clueless Moron (548336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831350)

Reminds of this set of speakers I purchased a while back. It says right on the box, "Now with enhanced MP3 support!".

Maybe it has a muffled high end so you don't hear the squishy mp3 artifacts so much?

A good marketer can turn any weakness into an asset!

Re:Native HTML5 (1)

man_the_king (1139561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831832)

A good marketer can turn any weakness into an asset!

I agree. A while back, I purchased a Gillette shaving gel (I don't remember which type it was now), but it was advertised as "Fragrance-free!".

I guess they weren't able to get any kind of fragrance to work with that gel.

The answer is simple. (1)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831204)

Were FireFox's villages raped and pillaged by ship-borne whites from the East then its people relegated to the outskirts of society where they lie, marginalized, in wait for the capitalistic anarchy that, any day now, will avenge them?

No? Sorry Mozilla.

MS knows how to implement standards... (-1, Redundant)

slashsandbox (2042292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831218)

Look, their ODF implementation in Office actually meets the word of the standard [c2.com] , yet can't open any file created by OO

IE9 on acid3... (-1, Redundant)

slashhexagon (2042296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831244)

In year 2011 (yep, not 2001) this browser still scores 60 on acid3 [goo.gl] They should be ashamed of themselves....

Native Experience of HTML5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831258)

So does that mean using IE9 is like hunting with a bow and arrow or a spear, having to chop wood for a fire to cook and keep warm and sleeping in a tee-pee or hut??? Microsoft is a joke. IE9 does work better with HTML5 then previous versions, but it still sucks. It blows at CSS3. I f-ing hate having to write code just for IE, even though my code works fine on every other browser.

Use of Native APIs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35831306)

I'm pretty sure they mean they're the only browser to use native hardware acceleration APIs, like DirectX.

If use of native APIs mean you run faster and provide a better user experience, that's something to advertise, but by itself is pretty meaningless. Hell, I can ship a web browser that uses the native Windows 3.1 APIs, doesn't mean it won't suck.

Microsoft's choice of words was silly... (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831312)

...but the performance demos in the MIX conference were entertaining, as all such demos are. I liked the one where the Windows Phone browser smoked Android, which in turn smoked iPhone 4. But contrived demos and marketing aside, it's nice to see Microsoft join the party in pushing the performance envelope on HTML and javascript.

Factual (5, Funny)

ssbssb (1537859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831396)

Clearly this was not intended to be a factual statement.

Meanwhile back at the MS Cave (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831694)

Dean Hachamovitch puts on his favorite trollface and giggles to himself at the riot he's received in response to his comments, while his market speak does its magic on the laymen PC users who think it actually has some legitimate meaning.

Marketing has been dishonest since marketing has existed, and while we scoff at what he has said, he hasn't said it for people who really understand it. Why is everyone so hung up on it now?

No right to mock... (1, Interesting)

RandomPsychology (932636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831698)

Whether it's proper use (whatever that means) of the term "native HTML5" or not, what Microsoft is implying is that their browser is the only one that runs HTML5 (specifically some of the graphics and video layers) directly on top of Windows Vista/7 graphical subsystems tied directly to hardware. I'm sure it employs technologies like WPF, DirectX, and so on. The competitors (Mozilla, Opera, Google, and Apple) support hardware acceleration, but they do it their own way--almost like they "hacked together" support for true hardware acceleration. Firefox and Chrome's rendering of complex 3D scenes is still jerky and relatively slow *especially* compared to IE. I've also noticed that Firefox's live preview renderings (for parts of Aero) are absolutely awful. They might as well not even exist at all. I'm not really an IE user, but I have to give kudos to Microsoft for the raw performance of IE 9 and 10. It really takes advantage of modern hardware. Other browser vendors should stop mocking and take some solid notes.

I read it wrong the first time (0)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35831740)

I thought it was naked HTML5. Just imagine how wonderful Internet Porn will be!

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...