Beta
×

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 Joins OpenAjax Alliance

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the conspiracy-theorists-activate dept.

Microsoft 104

Kurtz writes "Microsoft has joined The OpenAjax Alliance, which is focused on accelerating the use of Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, or Ajax, technologies. Microsoft said it agreed to join the alliance to work with other vendors to evolve Ajax."

cancel ×

104 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only fitting... (3, Insightful)

Niten (201835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18428875)

Well it seems only fitting, since they're the ones who invented Ajax in the first place...

Re:Only fitting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18428921)

Yet were so busy pushing ActiveX and JScript that they totally failed to notice that they'd done it. So today's announcement is ironic.

Not really (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429703)

They developed parts of it. That the extension to http. That is it. They did not develop javascript, the browser, the web, etc. They, like others, stood on the shoulders of giants. But to say that they developed ajax it wrong.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18430273)

And those people built on digital computers, which came from physics, which came from banging rocks together to make fire...

Re:Not really (5, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430317)

Edison didn't invent glass, didn't discover electricity, etc. but he DID invent the light bulb while standing on the shoulders of giants. Microsoft invented ajax regardless of how blinded by hatred you are. What might infuriate you even more is that if they hadn't created active-x they would never have created ajax. Imagine that, active-x, famous security nightmare, responsible for the great and powerful ajax.

Re:Not really (1)

AeroIllini (726211) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430729)

Imagine that, active-x, famous security nightmare, responsible for the great and powerful ajax.
And the moral of this story is: don't blame the idea for the implimentation.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18431607)

Ajax is neither great, nor powerful. Ajax is snakeoil.

If you need a stateful client-server application, then build one, and stop messing around with my documentation storage medium that works perfectly fine with HTML forms. Leave the computing on the backend where it belongs!

Re:Not really (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431795)

He didn't invent the lightbulb, he engineered a lightbulb with a reasonable lifespan. The first lightbulb was invented long before Edison started in on it.

The other E**3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18428909)

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!

Embrace, extend... evolve (3, Insightful)

subl33t (739983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18428911)

"to work with other vendors to evolve Ajax."

Hands up, everyone who thinks Ajax is now doomed...

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18428981)

Tag: itsatrap

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429425)

Speaking of tags, is it really necessary to tag this BOTH "embraceextend" and "embraceandextend"?

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429939)

No, not really.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (3, Funny)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429999)

I think the tag was originally embraceextend and then some other group decided to embrace and extend it.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

bibel (1072798) | more than 7 years ago | (#18428991)

Developers will soon have to pay big bucks to use ajax technologies. It's the Microsoft way.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (4, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429405)

Developers will soon have to pay big bucks to use ajax technologies. It's the Microsoft way.
Spoken by someone who clearly doesn't understand the first thing about AJAX or where the first functions which initiated it were developed.

Back in IE 5.0 when XMLHTTPRequest was an ActiveX function commentators, by the logic used in this thread, might have cried "Embrace extend extinguish! This is MS trying to remove competitors and forcing them to play catch up!".

Years on XMLHTTPRequest is a JavaScript function which is the backbone of AJAX everywhere; Microsoft officially joins an initiative to get a more uniform AJAX platform and people cry "Embrace extend extinguish! This is MS trying to remove competitors and forcing them to play catch up!".

I'm not saying others wouldn't have come up with it if Microsoft hadn't, but it does say something about calling foul too often and too early.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (2, Insightful)

hachete (473378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430347)

Why is this "interesting"?

Look at the OpenAjax HUB:

http://ejohn.org/blog/thoughts-on-openajax/ [ejohn.org]

This is clearly an attempt to wrest control of Ajax from the spotty oiks out there who made Ajax a success whilst Ms dropped the ball.

"Open" my arse. Open in the sense of this dungeon door is open, walk right in. Bring your wallet with you!

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18430403)

If 'Ajax' is ANYTHING like activex or javascript, it's bound to fail. Yeah, we know most of the malware started as activex scripts, now those scripts will have a helping hand thanks to Ajax! Great news!

For all who don't know - Mozilla has an extension that can be installed that let's YOU yes You the user believe it or not control which javascripts are allowed to execute. I hope my computer never gets the chance to know what 'Ajax' is. Sounds lame.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

chaosite (930734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432089)

"AJAX" is just some JavaScript code which passes XML back and forth from the server and changes the current page according to it. Things like gmail use it extensively. Its very much unlike ActiveX, which allows code to run unsandboxed in the client machine.

In short: AJAX is a buzzword for fancy JavaScript. Nothing to see here, move along.
An NoScript is very nice indeed.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433559)

"AJAX" is just some JavaScript code which passes XML back and forth from the server and changes the current page according to it.
"AJAX" is some JavaScript code that sends an HTTP request to the server and receives a response (normally available in both plain text and XML/DOMDocument formats). It doesn't inherently send XML to the server, though you can certainly send XML as part of the request if you want. Any changes made to the page are done through DOM objects/methods and are completely independent of AJAX.

</pedantic>

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18435839)

'Ajax' is not lame. It is totally awsome, and you are missing out if you don't use it.

When you go to a map webstie and decide to drag that map to another area it's 'Ajax' and it's quite amazing if you have never seen it.

Maybe I set the bar low, but when I first when to google maps I was completly amazed by what I saw. I could find the part I wanted on the map without it taking forever as the map jumped around and redrew a few inches at a time.

Ajax, javascript, and activex have been all been a huge success already with Ajax starting to fullfill promises made to use about the web in the 90's. I strongly recomend you go to google maps and let their script run, or even log into /. and see what it is like to browse the threads now.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430633)

There is no question that Microsoft stumbled upon the function that has ultimately become the heart of AJAX. Nobody is denying that.

Claiming that means Microsoft actually wants AJAX to be the first widespread technology that they don't hook with proprietary extensions is ridiculous. Just because they had a part in the technology existing doesn't mean they want it to be a uniform platform and play well with others. History has shown that there have been literally no instances where Microsoft has embraced an open technology and failed to extend.

Microsoft has never been interested in making anything truly open. Be it a standard, format, protocol, or anything else. There is fairly substantial historical basis for calling foul the moment they send representatives from the dark empire to join a commitee to develop an open anything.

The only role Microsoft will play on this committee is keeping the standard conservative and covering only core functions. That way there is plenty of room for them to extend the hell out of it.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18430779)

USB?

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430965)

shh don't tell anyone but USB is hardware. On the software side there are a number of proprietary Microsoft solutions surrounding USB.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429095)

Yep, I can feel the chants of embrace, extend, extinguish from here. Somehow I can't help but fear that MS will be adding proprietary COM addins to their XMLHTTPRequest implementation to "aid developers in promoting a more rich experience" which will of course tie most AJAX implementations to Windows and IE.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

jenkin sear (28765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429631)

Nah, they'll just sit on some submarine patents around XmlHttpRequest, and then sue Firefox out of existence.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434893)

Yes, because they have such an extensive history of doing such things.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

smartfart (215944) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429717)

I think their big worry is web-based office applications, such as Google's. Maiming AJAX (undoubtedly their aim here) is the logical thing for them to do, IMHO.

*Raises Hand* (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429455)

The reason why Ajax took off in the first place is because of techniques and libraries that have allowed for a *normalized* interface that strattles the inconsistencies between IE, Firefox and other browsers.

Well, okay, mostly IE and everyone else. So count this AC in: I question Microsoft's involvement in anything that attempts to erode their hedgemony over any market space. From www.openajax.org:

The prime objective is to accelerate customer success with Ajax by promoting a customer's ability to mix and match solutions from Ajax technology providers and by helping to drive the future of the Ajax ecosystem.

MS is obviously joining to help ensure that IE isn't written out of the future of web applications - how they accomplish that here, especially when most ajax libs steamroll over all browser inconsistencies anyway, is beyond me.

Re:Embrace, extend... evolve (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429747)

raises hand.

Microsoft said it agreed to join the alliance to work with other vendors to embrace Ajax.

There, I fixed the headline.

can't wait (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18428935)

Microsoft said it agreed to join the alliance to work with other vendors to evolve Ajax.

I can't wait for MS to release "Internet: Ajax Evolved".

embrace, extend and extinguish (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18428993)

Hurray!

How about a link? (5, Insightful)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429073)

OpenAjax Alliance [openajax.org] .

That said, I have no idea why this alliance is needed, even after reading most of their site. We already have Prototype [prototypejs.org] , MooTools [mootools.net] , jQuery [jquery.com] and other great libraries. I'd be perfectly happy if Microsoft could just make IE fully support CSS instead of joining this buzzword-masturbating alliance...

Re:How about a link? (2, Informative)

kjamez (10960) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429463)

don't forget the dojo toolkit, http://dojotoolkit.org/ [dojotoolkit.org]

JavaScript namespacing (2, Interesting)

Darkforge (28199) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429877)

The most important advantage we're hoping to get out of OpenAjax is JavaScript namespacing. Prototype, Dojo and others will all too happily clobber each other's functions and objects, rendering them useless when used together. A consistent naming standard is one of the most immediate tangible benefits of the alliance.

Re:JavaScript namespacing (1)

Denney (947351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430609)

Mod parent up!! This is a very important benefit.

Re:JavaScript namespacing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439817)

It'll be forever before we can depend on updated JS engines.

In the meantime, what's wrong with doing something like this:

(function namespace(ns)
{

  //private var global to the namespace namespace
  var bar = "Hello World";

  //function foo in the namespace namespace
  ns.foo=function()
  {
    alert(bar);
  }

})(namespace);

//Say hello
namespace.foo();

Re:JavaScript namespacing (1)

zoips (576749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433959)

Right, so we need another group in order to push ECMAScript 4 (aka Javascript 2.0)?

AJAX: The latest masturbatory buzzword for the clueless and stupid.

Re:How about a link? (1)

klept (895849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430151)

Who said the alliance is needed. Microsoft is merely following the old mob maxim "Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer".

Re:How about a link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18431353)

I'd be perfectly happy if Microsoft could just make IE fully support CSS instead of joining this buzzword-masturbating alliance...

You've hit the nail on the head.

Microsoft's mantra is "embrace - extend - extinguish". They just got it backwards this time: first they extended Javascript, then they tried to screw up things so bad it all went away, and now they're saying "whoops, forgot to embrace! let's go back and do that now".

boon and bane (3, Insightful)

j.metasyntactic (1074486) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429075)

How could this be bad? It is a good thing that Microsoft is working with an Open Alliance, in that Microsoft will be the better able to contribute to the developments and innovations. That Microsoft money will assist in any Open system. And do it in a way that works the technologies that are already out there, and that the community has already embraced- instead of developing a proprietary system that does things in a Microsoft way, and does not play nice with others. And since it is an Open Alliance, Microsoft cannot steer the technology in a direction that would benefit Microsoft solely.

Re:boon and bane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429143)

And since it is an Open Alliance, Microsoft cannot steer the technology in a direction that would benefit Microsoft solely.
For what reason do you think they joined up, if not to do just that?

Re:boon and bane (-1, Flamebait)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429233)

I was waiting for the punchline but it never came. So I take it that this person really thinks Microsoft is benevolent and intends to do only good things to/with this group. How naive.

LoB

Re:boon and bane (4, Insightful)

j.metasyntactic (1074486) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429497)

Undoubtedly they joined up to benefit microsoft. Any company would be foolish to throw down for any other reason. However, to assure that the technology works with Microsoft products, and to assure that Microsoft products work with the innovations that are emerging with AJAX, is within Microsoft's best interest- and therefore (in MS's idea) worthy of contributing some money and attention to. Standards are good. If an Open Alliance creates standards so that everyone's software and products work the same way when using it, then it does not matter who is funding the project. As log as everyone agrees. Not like I.E. which in many cases, ignores standards and does things in a completely different way. When doing web development we must already serve multiple stylesheet directives to accommodate inconsistencies across browsers. Miscrosoft being in on the AJAX Alliance will hopefully eliminate the possibility of needing to serve in multiplicity when using AJAX.

Re:boon and bane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433755)

A few inaccuracies there. Lemme fix:

However, to assure that the technology only works with Microsoft products, and to assure that only Microsoft products work with the innovations that are emerging with AJAX, is within Microsoft's best interest- and therefore (in MS's idea) worthy of collecting more money for. Standards are not good.

Now that matches Microsoft's way of thinking.

Amazingly enough, you mention history that proves exactly why this is not a good thing:
Not like I.E. which in many cases, ignores standards and does things in a completely different way. When doing web development we must already serve multiple stylesheet directives to accommodate inconsistencies across browsers. Miscrosoft being in on the AJAX Alliance will hopefully eliminate the possibility of needing to serve in multiplicity when using AJAX.

You do realize that Microsoft had representatives on the W3C committee the whole time all of these discrepancies were designed into I.E, don't you? Why the hell do you think AJAX will be any different?

Re:boon and bane (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429481)

How could this be bad?

Do you remember how they supported Java? Lots of stalling, equivocating and Windows-only Java extensions, all while promoting ActiveX over Java. Eventually, all these actions prompted a lawsuit from Sun which Sun won. After this, Microsoft totally dropped support of their JVM in a fit of spite.

Let's face it: Microsoft doesn't promote or like standards. What they like are proprietary technologies that only they can effcetively use.

Re:boon and bane (0, Troll)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429929)

"Do you remember how they supported Java? Lots of stalling, equivocating and Windows-only Java extensions, all while promoting ActiveX over Java. Eventually, all these actions prompted a lawsuit from Sun which Sun won. After this, Microsoft totally dropped support of their JVM in a fit of spite."

Actually MS was a rather early adopter of Java. Yes, they made a JVM that ran 100% pure Java apps better on Windows than Sun's could and they added extensions to the Java language (in the form of J++) that made Java more useful to Windows programmers. Apparently the potential of capturing 90% of desktops was less important to Sun than achieving partial WORA on the remaining 10%, so Sun sued MS.

It was perfectly logical and reasonable for MS to get out of the Java business once Sun made it clear they were out for blood.

Mod Parent Up - Not Troll (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432897)

"Sun's license for Java insists that all implementations be "compatible". This resulted in a legal dispute with Microsoft after Sun claimed that the Microsoft implementation did not support the RMI and JNI interfaces and had added platform-specific features of their own. Sun sued and won both damages (some $20 million) and a court order enforcing the terms of the license from Sun. As a result, Microsoft no longer ships Java with Windows, and in recent versions of Windows, Internet Explorer cannot support Java applets without a third-party plugin." - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Dunno what "100% pure Java apps" are, but MS Java ran better than Sun Java at the time. Sun didn't want to lose control, hence the lawsuit and also Sun's delay in Open-Sourcing Java. Unfortunately some readers are too young to remember these events.

Re:Mod Parent Up - Not Troll (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433315)

"100% pure Java" was a logo program that Sun created that was supposed to certify that a qualifying application "conforms to the Java ideal of universal portability". I assume that the word "ideal" was used because Sun realized that Java apps couldn't actually achieve universal portability. Like many others, I suspected that its main purpose was to discredit MS's JVM and Java apps that were based on it.

Re:boon and bane (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430881)

How could this be bad?

You must be new here. MS has a long history of polluting things with proprietary extensions. Java and Kerebos, for example.

With Java they added two commands that Sun's version did not have. With Kerebos, they took a free implementation from MIT and changed it so that it is incompatible with every other Kerebos implementation.

Then there are all those promises of MS in terms of interoperability. HTML, XML, CSS2, etc.

Re:boon and bane (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431083)

Read between the lines. Microsoft doesn't do anything to benefit humanity unless it benefits themselves more (or has the potential to benefit themselves more). This has been exemplified many times in the past. This is the first step of the 'embrace, extend, extinguish' strategy. I admit that I may be quick to call foul on Microsoft, but given their reputation, can you blame me and others for doing so?

because they want to work with others... (0, Troll)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429145)

The news should be that they are joining this existing group so they can subvert it, slow it down, or just plain make sure their stuff doesn't work well on MS Windows.

LoB

You obviously don't understand (1)

deadkevin (875241) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431391)

Microsoft wants stuff to only work Better in windows. Notworse. Remember when they "helped" Java. deadkevin

Re:You obviously don't understand (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18435533)

And it just so happens that EVERY TIME they do this, they make their version incompatible with the others.

So you think they are doing it to make it run better on Windows? Can I interest you in a piece of land on the moon?

Don't kid yourself, EVERYTHING Microsoft does is tweaked to act as a protection mechanism for the Microsoft Windows monopoly. And unfortunately, these tweaks always make the developers job more difficult and customer experience confusing in a heterogeneous environment.

LoB

Open and Microsoft (-1, Redundant)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429163)

ahahaah ahahah haha hhahah ahahha hahha haha haha !! hahaahh 1!!!!

i wont even attempt to say "its a trap!" ...

well, well (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429241)

Thing is, they had a hand in starting the async. xml and javascript story. Another thing is, they don't really have a good record on standards compliance. Add them together, what do you get ? Yep, innovation at it's best: going backwards.

On the other hand, MS just has to be in there, like in everything else, since it;s harder to influence and/or control if you're not inside. That's all. All the rest about great innovations and lotsa tall blondes and free beers is just a bedside story.

to ensure interoperability among tools built by different vendors

Yupp, MS's paradise.
 

Look what they did for Java (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429249)

Just look what Microsoft did for Java when they joined the java bandwagon.
AJAX is sure to go on to bigger and better things.
I hope Apple help too, cuz they're cool and Safari is awesome.

Sweet (3, Funny)

loafing_oaf (1054200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429281)

Sweet, now I don't have to learn AJAX. I can't wait for AJAX#.

Re:Sweet (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430023)

You don't even need to wait: http://ajax.asp.net/ [asp.net]

they have a better Ajax (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429285)

They have announced that they will "improve" and "enhance" Ajax to give it "new" and "exciting" features. Too bad IE7 is the only browser that will support these features. And the API and documentation will be known only within MSFT. There will be bugs in the server side which IE7 will work around, and there will be bugs in IE7 side that the server will work around. But the new and exciting OOAjax will be "new industry standard".

Embrace. Check

Extend. pending.

Extinguish. soon

...

...

profit. forever.

Re:they have a better Ajax (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429553)

Microsoft created the XMLHTTPRequest object in IE. Then other browsers implemented it. So AJAX effectively went from being IE-only to a de-facto standard. I think your point of view is backwards.

Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft and they have embraced-extended-extinguished many things. But AJAX probably won't be one of them.

The hole is getting deep (1)

cloudkiller (877302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429295)

MS could come out tomorrow and say that they will be donating $100 million dollars a day to the development and enhancement of Ubuntu as a replacement for the failed Windows Vista and everyone would still be filling up the /. comments sections with "on noes" and ??? > profit! all day long. Not that I would not agree and then wrap foil over my unbuntu distro CDs, I'm just saying it is about time MS just give up and embrace their evilness.

Re:The hole is getting deep (3, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429427)

Maybe /. should grow up and quit personifying corporations?

Seriously, this website serves absolutely no purpose, and has no weight in the industry. It's a place for geeks to verbally masturbate.

Nobody goes to their boss with a proposal or idea that begins with "I read on slashdot..."

Re:The hole is getting deep (2, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429655)

... quit personifying corporations?

They hate it when you do that.

Re:The hole is getting deep (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430907)

Nobody goes to their boss with a proposal or idea that begins with "I read on slashdot..."

That kind of depends.... You're probably on safe ground if your boss is wearing a shirt that says: "I'm CowboyNeal's Lovechild", has a poster of Chuck Norris, or repeatedly says: "I'm your boss, you insensitive clod..."

For other bosses, I suppose "I read in the blogosphere..." will have to do.

Re:The hole is getting deep (1)

anomalous cohort (704239) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430927)

Nobody goes to their boss with a proposal or idea that begins with "I read on slashdot..."

Not necessarily so. I don't bother mentioning the source but I have incorporated lots of technologies that I've heard about on /. into our products and/or processes. Perhaps 99% of the content here is sophomoric but the remaining 1% is pure gold and worth every minute of sifting through the same old tired jokes repeated endlessly.

Re:The hole is getting deep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18431073)

Well I just went to my boss and said that I read on slashdot;

Seriously, this website serves absolutely no purpose, and has no weight in the industry. It's a place for geeks to verbally masturbate.

Then I added that slashdot reflects real world views, is profitable and has thousands of regular users. He thinks I might be onto something, and thanks you for your insight.

Re:The hole is getting deep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18431239)

Of course not.
I tell him and his boss that I read about it on the intertubes...
Actually I don't tell him anything. I walk over and say "Hey, got something to show you" and let the item speak for itself. I could say "Bill Gates (We are a MS only company) told me..." and it wouldn't do any good if I didn't show it to him.

Re:The hole is getting deep (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431251)

"Nobody goes to their boss with a proposal or idea that begins with "I read on slashdot..."

Your exactly right. When they go to their boss the proposal goes, "I came up with a great new solution.." or, "I was doing some research into tools.." I.E. they'll just claim the idea came from them.

Slashdot isn't a reputable source for anything, however it is a great hydrant of various ideas, software and hardware. As with any source you have to do your own research and sift through the misinformation and/or useless stuff.. but slashdot is still a great source for cutting edge stuff (as well as old stuff you haven't seen before).

I have to admit though, this article is garbage ;).

Agreed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18436825)

Just the other day, thanks to that graph some Groklawer made of SCO's convoluted claims, I learned about Visgraph.org which was *exactly* the tool I needed to solve a problem at work.

And that's not the first time I've found great new programs and tools (or even old ones I never knew about).

Re:The hole is getting deep (2, Insightful)

aeoo (568706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431571)

Seriously, this website serves absolutely no purpose,
The purpose is to communicate.

and has no weight in the industry.
It has the same weight as any other communication -- no more, no less. When you participate in a group discussion, you are probably going to respect some people and not others. Those that you respect will influence you and that influence will carry through to your day job.

It's a place for geeks to verbally masturbate.
Communication venues are what you make of them. Since you say that, I have to surmise that you are verbally masturbating right now. As they say -- don't cut the branch you're sitting on.

Nobody goes to their boss with a proposal or idea that begins with "I read on slashdot..."
Nobody goes to their boss with a proposal or idea that begins with "I was thinking in the shower..." or "While I was taking a massive dump..." or "I dreamt about..." and yet our thinking process from dreams, bathrooms, and so on, does influence us on our day job. Of course due to social conventions you are not likely to disclose that to your boss. That doesn't mean it has no weight!

Re:The hole is getting deep (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434215)

>It's a place for geeks to verbally masturbate.

So was it good for you too?

Control (3, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429299)

Microsoft only seeks to control that which threatens its bread and butter.

In this case, the concept that AJAX presents is a killer app to the bread and butter business of Productivity Software. With AJAX one can create the software one needs, and there is no restrictions on client OS other than a browser that properly displays AJAX components.

Combine this with the idea from Adobe on sandboxing this in a wrapper for distribution away from Client/Server architecture which is completely platform independant, and you have a huge problem for Microsoft.

They are going to try to tie specific implementations to Proprietary products (Windows, IE etc).

Resistance is Futile.

Re:Control (1)

naoursla (99850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430629)

Meanwhile, Microsoft releases a new version of Visual Studio [microsoft.com] with JScript support and a library that makes AJAX programming [asp.net] dead simple.

Microsoft has zero interest in killing AJAX, JScript, or the web.

Re:Control (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432217)

Yes, I remember when the very same thing happened ten years ago and all of Microsoft's productivity software was replaced by Java.

Er, um, I guess that didn't really happen. Maybe it's because the software platform doesn't matter?

Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (1, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429353)

Microsoft has turned the inherently open XML tech that is the "X" in XML into a battleground of propretary XML dialects to protect their MS Office formats. Just the latest in MS monkeywrenches in open format technologies like HTTP, HTML that force everyone to support the format that's best for MS. MS will surely turn AJAX into yet another "success" story.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18430491)

Microsoft has turned the inherently open XML tech...

Oh please. If it were "inherently open", then Microsoft wouldn't be able to do such a thing. The only thing open about XML is the syntax*. It doesn't guarantee that the data structures that you read in mean anything - it doesn't address semantics at all, and if you think otherwise, you've been listening to PHBs playing buzzword bingo and not techies.

* Actually, technically, XML isn't open. You need to buy the ISO SGML standard to fully grok it.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430725)

You're just spinning gibberis, Anonymous MS fanboy Coward. The whole point of XML is to open data format dialects, getting out of the proprietary ghetto. Just like one fundamental point of HTTP and HTML were cross-platform data formats. When MS joined the working groups for those, of which I was a member, MS proceeded to damage them so the proprietary extensions could force the Web to be "more Microsoft". It's obvious that MS will do the same again to XML.

Your hairsplitting tells us nothing about how MS will fail to do exactly that. But it does reveal how it will succeed: enlisting the astroturf of Anonymous Cowards like you.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (2, Interesting)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431957)

To quote someone or another, "you sir, are an idiot." The AC was perfectly correct in stating that XML is nothing more than an overhyped method for organizing elements of a document and that it does nothing what-so-ever to define the semantics of the elements. A CSV file has 99% of the same benefits of XML for most uses. Just about the only thing you can't do with a CSV vs an XML document is easily transmit hierarchical data.

The fact that MS can generate an XML document that has no human-understandable elements is a failure of XML, and nothing less.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432393)

Here's an original statement: you're a worthless fool.

We're arguing about whether Microsoft damages open standards while claiming their cloak of respectability, as they have with XML, and as they will do with the class of XML apps called AJAX, the subject of the story. There might be an argument as to the openness of XML, which would be lost as the AC argued so far in this thread. There might be an argument whether XML is better than CSV by addition of runtime machine-readable DTDs, but it's not only irrelevant, you blew your chance to indulge by talking like an obnoxious moron - while being wrong, to boot.

If you can't even keep the debate on the merits of Microsoft's abuse of technologies to preserve proprietary advantage masked in open standards, there's no use offering you the privilege of discussing it with me.

Goodbye.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#18442529)

Moderation -1
    100% Troll

If kicking an Anonymous troll Coward goodbye in the same style they slimed hello is a "Troll", then maybe I earned that one.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18448115)

I think the reason you got modded troll is because you said "We're arguing about whether Microsoft damages open standards while claiming their cloak of respectability". In reality, XML doesn't confer a "cloak of respectability", people like you confer respectability by claiming XML makes everything wonderfully open. Since it's fair for Microsoft to say that they are using XML, and you say that XML is intrinsically open, it is you that is cloaking them in respectability, while simultaneously complaining about it and accusing other people of astroturfing and being Microsoft shills.

Microsoft use XML. XML is only part of the openness puzzle. Get over it and stop claiming that XML does more, because you are damaging the ideas you claim to support and inadvertently supporting Microsoft.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#18449143)

Except that MS uses its announcements to "support XML" to confer the cloak of respectability as an open standard. Then they use XML to keep it proprietary, while saying they're not.

If people can't follow the story enough to track how MS abuses everything it touches, so I can just refer to it, then I'm really not interested in discussing it with them. I'm not writing a book here - I'm looking for discussion with people familiar with the issues.

And besides, since your argument claims that it's fair for MS to say they're using XML, I find your post to be more like a "concern troll" [reference.com] . I don't think anyone who isn't already sympathetic to MS propaganda would find my perfectly legitimate accusations about MS and XML in this AJAX group context to support MS in any way. So thanks for your concern, but I'll just keep on.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432027)

The whole point of XML is to open data format dialects

No, the whole point of XML is to have a standard syntax. A data format is a combination of syntax and semantics. XML doesn't give you semantics, only syntax. XML applications (e.g. OpenDocument) may supply semantics, but it's not XML giving it to you, it's the application.

When MS joined the working groups for those, of which I was a member, MS proceeded to damage them so the proprietary extensions could force the Web to be "more Microsoft". It's obvious that MS will do the same again to XML.

I'm not arguing otherwise. But Office's XML is not a proprietary extension to XML. It's an XML application that happens to provide lousy, unclear semantics. Bad for the office software ecosystem, sure. But not bad for XML, unless you think XML is something more than syntax, which it isn't.

Can you parse Office's XML with an XML parser? Yes? Then it's not broken what XML set out to do. Cheerleaders like you who like to hold XML up as something more than it actually is might not like it, but as far as XML itself is concerned, it can be parsed just like any other XML application.

The problem with Office's XML is what you do with the data once you've parsed it. This is something outside the scope of XML. It doesn't matter what you do with it at that point, as long as you can parse it as XML, XML has done the job it was supposed to do.

Your hairsplitting tells us nothing about how MS will fail to do exactly that.

It's not hairsplitting to point out that XML doesn't give you semantics. It's the fundamental nature of XML. It's a serialisation format, not a semantic format. You can build semantic formats with it, but that's not a requirement of XML, that's your requirement.

But it does reveal how it will succeed: enlisting the astroturf of Anonymous Cowards like you.

Astroturf? I've held a grudge against Microsoft for years because of Internet Explorer. But that doesn't mean XML is any more "semantic". It's not! XML solves the problem of having a standard syntax, which may be incredibly useful if you want an open document format, but semantics is definitely outside the scope of XML and crappy semantics doesn't break XML's goals unless you attribute goals that aren't there.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433869)

If Microsoft is agreeing to evolve AJAX within an open standards body then inside that context they cannot introduce proprietary features. This is much better than Microsoft evolving AJAX all by itself -- of course Microsoft may do that regardless as another in-house development stream. Dismissing Microsoft's efforts is a common theme. As with anything you can always look at the negative aspects instead of the positive. I wanted to note a positive point.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18434465)

The point that MS "evolving" AJAX inside an open standards body at least offers some opportunities to keep AJAX "equal opportunity" for everyone, not just MS, is a good one.

And discussing the need for that alternative to MS just hijacking the tech on its own is part of the way to ensure that the open groups are watching for MS tricks and manipulation.

Together, the two competing interests can engage in the open group to help keep open the tech it produces.

Re:Embrace, Extend, Exterminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18441061)

the inherently open XML tech that is the "X" in XML

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You fucking marketdroid.

First ODF, now AJAX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18429419)

Is this a repeat of the ODF/OpenXML fiasco!

Corporate rubbish? (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429647)

John Resig, lead developer of the jQuery [jquery.com] library, has already written about [ejohn.org] this alliance. Choice quote:

This is all (hopefully) an overreaction. But the very fact that no non-legally-backed entities exist in the alliance (and the fact that no good corporation would sign a legal agreement ambiguously defining the status of an "organization") leads me to believe that many of today's poplar JavaScript libraries are intended to be left out of the drafting of the OpenAjax requirements.

Malicesoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18431885)

Microsoft seem to aggressively push their own ideas regardless of technical merit. If this is pressured employees, corporate spite or both I'm not sure. One thing to be sure of; if they don't get their own way then they will sabotage the standard. If it wasn't for the monopoly, it's hard to imagine them being welcome in any standards group.

What about server push / comet? (1)

ratta (760424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18429757)

Ajax is currently supported on many browsers, even if a more standardized way would be welcome. What is really missing is a way for server to send data to the client, and this is often emulated using hidden iframe's that never load completely. Is there any plan to improve on this?

SOAP-ification (2, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430095)

Right now AJAX is pretty simple.
Just like XML-RPC was. Then Microsoft made it all complicated and called it SOAP. Now you need a library to use SOAP because its so complicated.
I hope this doesn't happen to AJAX!!

Re:SOAP-ification (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18430549)

What do you mean complicated? SOAP can't be complicated, the name says it's simple! Simple Object Access Protocol!!!!

Re:SOAP-ification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18431999)

> SOAP can't be complicated, the name says it's simple!
> Simple Object Access Protocol!!!!

Yeah and OpenXML is open [grokdoc.net]

Re:SOAP-ification (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433139)

Now you need a library to use SOAP because its so complicated.
No you don't. And no it's not. I support a product which includes a SOAP API and several clients access it using hand-crafted XML for their SOAP calls. This is pretty straightforward, certainly easier than e.g real-world CSS or XSL.

To return to the original subject of this thread: if you think SOAP is complex, no way should you consider using AJAX!

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18430651)

> Microsoft said it agreed to join the alliance to work with other vendors to evolve Ajax.

I believe _this_ is more the case for ID (albeit evil) than evolution.

Microsoft joins a standards body...again? (1)

HomerNet (146137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431093)

How long will it be before Microsoft gets cranky, takes their ball, and goes home this time?

Re:Microsoft joins a standards body...again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432169)

You know, given Microsoft's weight in the industry, a standard body without them in is perfectly useless.

Ajax spammers - sys-con.com (1)

jazman (9111) | more than 7 years ago | (#18431583)

Whatever you do, don't sign up to sys-con.com's mailing lists unless you know for absolutely 100% positively certain that you want to be pestered about Ajax conferences for the rest of your life. They WILL NOT remove you from their mailing lists. TBH I've no idea how I actually got on their lists in the first place.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>