Earlier this month, the Microsoft engineers overseeing Internet Explorer offered their feedback on the latest draft of the proposed version 5 of the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML 5). For many, Microsoft's interest was a sign that the spec is finally gaining some much-needed momentum.
The "IE team is reviewing the current editor's draft of the HTML 5 spec and gathering our thoughts. We want to share our feedback and discuss this in the working group," wrote Microsoft engineer Adrian Bateman, in an e-mail to the working group list.
One might assume that the industry would move uniformly toward HTML 5, given that the entire Web was built from HTML. This doesn't seem to be entirely the case, however.
The creation of the HTML 5 standard has been a long time in coming. Because of this long lapse since the finalization of HTML 4, ratified in 1997, the World Wide Web Consortium has been criticized for letting the Internet world jumping ahead of the HTML standards.
At the XML 2007 Conference in Boston, Yahoo Architect Douglas Crockford noted that a number of single-vendor offerings have sprung up in the wake of lack of standards for offering rich Internet content. Microsoft Silverlight, Adobe Air and Sun Microsystems' JavaFX are three such offerings. As a result, if you want to post a video, you may use Flash. If you want to build a web application with a snazzy interface, you may try out Silverlight.
"We believe standardizing proven technologies is an important way to drive consistency across platforms, and consistency improves developer productivity, which leads to more innovation," said Dave McAllister, Adobe's director of standards and open source, in an e-mail interview. Adobe engineers do contribute to the HTML 5 work and Adobe offers up its ActionScript, the component driving Flash, as open source.
That said, however, McAllister also notes the hurdles that HTML 5 faces. "The browser market remains highly fragmented, and incompatibilities between browsers reign," he said. "The HTML 5 timeline states that it will be at least a decade before the evolving HTML 5 efforts are finalized, and it remains to be seen what parts will be implemented consistently across all browsers."
Until all these issues are worked out, McAllister reminds us, a lot of rich Internet functionality can already be enjoyed by using the company's Flash player and Flex framework. "With 98 percent of connected desktops using Flash Player, and nearly 80 percent of Web video being played via Flash Player, customers are demonstrating that they value and rely on Adobe's innovative and consistent Flash," McAllister said.
The promise of HTML 5 is that it can offer these features, without requiring the plug-ins from any one vendor. HTML 5 will offer developers the ability to draw 2-D graphics, along with tags allowing users to edit pages and specifying conditions of client-side data storage. HTML 5 should also be able to offer video and audio without plug-ins. Google, for instance, offers a demonstration YouTube page that plays video using no plug-in. It will also offer abilities for building out more advanced data-intensive Web.
Getting all these new features in order, however, means the final ratification may not happen for another decade, some are predicting. And developers have recognized the opportunity in the standard's slow development to jump ahead with their own solutions. So, can the HTML 5 make up the lost ground? Or have we already lost the common Web for all but the most basic tasks?
Posted on Aug 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM0 comments
Our recent stories on the court injunction barring Microsoft from selling Word with Extensible Markup Language features drew some sharp opinions from readers. As might be expected, some of the people who commented on the coverage were glad to see the software giant take a hit. But Microsoft was not alone -- the federal judge in the U.S. District of East Texas who made the ruling as well as the U.S. system for issuing patents also came in for criticism.
More on this topic from GCN:
Microsoft gets little sympathy from federal (non)fan base
Microsoft seeks emergency stay in Word patent dispute
Federal future cloudy for Microsoft Word
Court ruling puts brakes on sales of Microsoft Word
Other readers suggested that everyone take a deep breath and let the case play out, arguing that the ruling will not mean the end of Word. And others held forth on open-source vs. proprietary software.
The judge agreed with a claim by the Canadian company i4i that Microsoft violated its patent for technology used to read .XML and .DOCM files containing custom XML, ruling that Microsoft stop selling Word products "that have the capability of opening a .XML, .DOCX, or .DOCM file ('an XML file') containing custom XML." Microsoft has filed a motion to stay the injunction.
“The next time you talk to Microsoft, ask them how many times they used the term "CustomXML" in the OOXML Standard that they put through the ISO Fast Track Process,” wrote one reader. “I've heard that it's referenced over 1,000 times. If that's the case, it's nice of them to put forth a Standard that supports the infringement of someone else’s patent.”
Another reader questioned why a patent was issued in the first place, writing: “Yes more proof of the stupidity of the U.S. patent system. How any company can be awarded a patent that allows for embedding of custom XML in an XML file is absurd. Why have an open standard if proprietary patents can be applied to selective parts of it?”
Another anonymous writer agreed: “The words ‘custom XML’ do not equate to patent infringement. There are thousands of implementations of custom XML out there. The first key is whether or not Microsoft actually infringed on a patent. That is not always an easy thing to determine, particularly by a judge who has studied law and not software development.” The writer, in a long post, went on to suggest that a higher court would overturn the ruling, but that, if it did stand, one of three things would result:
- Microsoft reaches a licensing agreement with i4i.
- Microsoft redesigns how it handles XML.
- Microsoft will develop an add-on for i4i products.
Other readers were ready to clear the benches. “Much ado about nothing. If federal officials are worried, it is simply because they don't understand the market,” wrote one. “Like most of the incompetent people sitting on our benches these days, the judge is an idiot. Microsoft isn't going to stop selling word processing software just because some judge hits them with an injunction.”
And another: “Sounds like some biased judging with this case. Many contenders would like to stick it to the software giant and makes me wonder how justified the ruling is with this case.”
And what about open source? “Open Source Code is a bad idea for the government due to security reasons. Cybersecurity is a top issue I cannot see why we would open up a code to all the hackers that already infiltrate the system,” wrote one reader.
In response, reader Elias Aarnio disagreed: “Once again here we can see a comment from someone who does not understand computer security at all. Opening the source to the public is a way to increase data security. Why is this? Simply because the opposite strategy commonly called 'security by obscurity' does not work. Quite the opposite: The holes in the system remain unknown to the sysadmins themselves and exploitation and stealing data can go on for ages.”
Senshikaze wrote: “And yet, the Open Source OpenOffice.org wasn't even mentioned as a possible competitor to Office. Having court documents and government documents locked into a format that will be unreadable in five years is not my idea of a good move by any government IT.”
And Derick Centeno explained: “Open-source software functions on the principle that safety exists when all or many eyes are on the code. … This process appears counterintuitive until one thinks it through. This doesn't mean that a project like Openoffice.org or Abiword is free of problems; it does mean, however, that a sysAdmin or group of federal or other government official SysAdmins can apply such projects to their own uses theoretically with better assurance of what that code is actually doing -- this cannot be said of any proprietary code from Microsoft or anyone else.”
Posted on Aug 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM6 comments
In response to our recent coverage of a court ruling against Microsoft, numerous readers posted comments expressing their ambivalence about their reliance on the company’s software. Even some readers who wrote to say the case had no merit qualified their comments by noting they were “no fan of Microsoft.”
Related stories:
Readers delve into the weeds of Microsoft ruling
Microsoft seeks emergency stay in Word patent dispute
Federal future cloudy for Microsoft Word
Court ruling puts brakes on sales of Microsoft Word
The case itself involved a Canadian company called i4i that asserted Microsoft had infringed on a patent for technology that makes it possible for Microsoft Word software to handle XML code. A federal judge ruled in favor of i4i and ordered Microsoft to stop selling its software beginning in mid October. (Read more about the ruling here and about its potential impact on federal customers here).
Some readers do not like what they see as Microsoft’s predatory business practices.
“They seem to be a company choking on their own hubris,” wrote M. “Gates got out of ‘Dodge’ just in time. They clearly were beginning to lose traction on users. There are those who say Microsoft bought, stole, intimidated and stole their way to the top. Have they finally been caught?”
“Microsoft isn't going to stop selling word processing software just because some judge hits them with an injunction,” another reader said. “They might not be selling Word, but you can bet that whatever the renamed product is, it will contain the same functionality as Word. The bottom line is that the federal government needs Microsoft far more than Microsoft needs the federal government.”
For others, the case is just an opportunity to complain about the software itself, especially Word 2007.
“Perhaps i4i has done us all a favor,” a reader concluded: “As far as I am concerned, Office 2007 fixed something that was not broken. I still have a hard time finding what I need on those 2007 'ribbons.' Office 2003 is well known, easy to use and capable of serving almost everyone's needs.”
But most readers took a more pragmatic view, concerned about what would happen if the injunction were allowed to stand.
“The federal government is essentially a Microsoft house, bought and paid for,” according to RayW. “How WILL this affect us? Will we get/have to upgrade back to an earlier version of Office or will the big guns in the fed system put the screws to the judges and say ‘No way, we have a vested interest in this not happening'?”
“The problem here is that Microsoft is being punished for using an open document standard,” Scott wrote. “Office 2007 is actually a step forward in usability, and this ruling will force them to patch out the ability to use the new file formats, which will in turn cost everyone, private and government, in terms of server space used for end-user documents.”
“Maybe the folks of the previous postings forgot what it was like when software was plain 'incompatible' and documents sent all over the country and/or within a business couldn't be read,” another reader says. “Wake up. You're probably using Microsoft's product to make you more productive.”
“The fine may or may not stand, but the ruling to stop selling Word will never stand,” says ChrsAntiThesis. “I don't think the system as a whole has lost its marbles that much yet.”
A few other people took it a step further and advised their fellow commenters, in short, to get over it.
Keninmo wrote, “If you don't like Microsoft, don't buy it, simple, go buy WordPerfect. :-) Nobody forces a person to buy MS Office, and you are perfectly free to reformat your hard drive and install a non-Window OS.”
Which prompted this from Ken: “Oh no, don't tell me Word Perfect is making a comeback -- I removed my F10 key!”
Posted on Aug 18, 2009 at 7:05 PM0 comments