MS Withdraws From WC3 Web Services Working Group

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Withdraws From WC3 Web Services Working Group

Posted by timothy on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @02:33AM from the rather-withdrawn dept.

slashusrslashbin writes "CNet is reporting that Microsoft has broken with a key Web Services standard effort. Apparently the W3C 'is not the only vehicle in which to impact and evaluate a set of technologies.' Evaluating them in a massive monopoly is probably just as good..."

36 of 47 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

surprise? by den_erpel · 2003-03-25 02:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

After their withdrawal of the OpenGL consortium or board, this is not a surprise.

Afterall microsoft _is_ the standard, why should you have independent standard committees?? :(

--
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
1. Re:surprise? by Miguel+de+Icaza · 2003-03-25 03:52 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  you're wrong Microsoft are increasingly committed to standards. Office 2003 will save to XML, the evolution of webservices and most importantly Microsoft proved with the CLI and the C# language that it was possible to create a powerful foundation for many languages to inter-operate. We will always have that. Even if changes happened in the platform which were undocumented, the existing platform would a value on its own.
  
  --
  Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
2. Re:surprise? by Directrix1 · 2003-03-25 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Office 2003 XML has been reported to be almost worthless to non-M$ apps. CLI and C# are great standards, but Microsoft will extend the base classes to the point of complete uninteroperability as quickly as they can, after they get a sufficient user base. Mono can be the answer, if they can get enough of the base classes working before Microsoft extends their own spec.
  
  --
  Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
3. Re:surprise? by The+Bungi · 2003-03-25 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Office 2003 XML has been reported to be almost worthless to non-M$ apps.
  If you're referring to the "reporting" done here in Slashdot, think again. The article posted re: Office XML was flamebait, pure and simple, as are many of the "m$ sucks" articles posted here day in and day out.
  I suggest you go read the responses to that article - pay attention to those modded down "flamebait". And then find a valid news source.
  Microsoft will extend the base classes to the point of complete uninteroperability as quickly as they can
  Wow, I'd kill to have a crystal ball!
4. Re:surprise? by sproketboy · 2003-03-25 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're wrong. Keep dreaming Miguel, you're wasting everyones time with this mono crap. Why don't you do something useful for the planet and get Gnome working properly.
  --- Mono - going nowhere slowly....
In other news by the_other_one · 2003-03-25 02:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft announces new standardized anti trust laws...

--
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
1. Re:In other news by smurf975 · 2003-03-25 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds like the reason why there is a .NET at all. As the MS JVM (it is said) is faster and better. So Sun said noway. I also think Mono is wasted time. They should better concentrate on doing their own framework. Which could be as good or better and theirs!
  
  --
  -- I don't buy it, I grow it.
2. Re:In other news by REBloomfield · 2003-03-25 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but the difference here is that they've always said that .NET was platform independent, and they've submitted the CLR et al to Standards bodies to that affect. The abscence of .NET on any other platform is of course not an issue to Microsoft, but it can only benefit them in the long run if Mono does succeed.
3. Re:In other news by KDan · 2003-03-25 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... remembering that one of MS's strongest point is their PR work, I fail to see how having a stronger .NET implementation on Linux than on Windows is going to help them...
  
  Daniel
  
  --
  Carpe Diem
4. Re:In other news by REBloomfield · 2003-03-25 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  define 'stronger implementation'? Since the standard belongs to Microsoft, all the Mono project is doing is implementing it. Does IBM or Microsoft have a stronger Java Virtual Machine implementation? (okay, don't answer that :p )
5. Re:In other news by REBloomfield · 2003-03-25 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  now, when microsoft do this, they get blasted.
  why should mono waste their time reinventing the wheel. this oppurtunity should be taken before it turns into another java, which has so much promise and then fell flat on its face.
6. Re:In other news by KDan · 2003-03-25 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  What I mean is that given Microsoft's history of bugs and security problems, it wouldn't be too surprising to find that the Microsoft implementation is riddled with them, while the Mono implementation, once mature, is faster, works on both windows and unix, has no bugs and doesn't crash.
  
  And that wouldn't help the M$ PR machine, now, would it? :-P
  
  Daniel
  
  --
  Carpe Diem
7. Re:In other news by FroMan · 2003-03-25 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is kind of a misleading idea, java has not fallen flat on its face. On the desktop it was b0rked by MS, however on the server where MS isn't, java is very common.
  
  Even where MS is, like at my company, we are moving from IIS and MS java to real java so we implement on any platform.
  
  The point is that java is alive and well, just not where you see it. Its like linux, in that respect, you don't know its there cause it does its job in the background, not on the desktop.
  
  --
  Norris/Palin 2012
  Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
In other news by KDan · 2003-03-25 02:57 · Score: 1

Microsoft shuts down Mono effort for breach of intellectual property rights.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

The only interesting question remaining is whether they'll shut it down before or after Mono becomes a better, stabler, more standards-compliant implementation of .NET than Microsoft's own.

Daniel

--
Carpe Diem
Only a portion of the W3C by n-baxley · 2003-03-25 03:05 · Score: 4, Informative

It's important to note, and not really clear in the post, that MS is only pulling out of the so-called choreography group for Web Services. It's still a shame, but not as drastic as if they were pulling out all together or abandoning the working group that defines XHTML or CSS. It's still too bad though.

--

THIS SPACE FOR RENT
1. Re:Only a portion of the W3C by RedWolves2 · 2003-03-25 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  They are just pulling out of the Web Services group.
2. Re:Only a portion of the W3C by archeopterix · 2003-03-25 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's important to note, and not really clear in the post, that MS is only pulling out of the so-called choreography group for Web Services.
  But of course, Steve Ballmer has his own choreography standards!
  Developers! Developers! Developers!
Public Image, Feet to Fire, Etc. by 4of12 · 2003-03-25 03:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

As the article said, it's a real shame that the standards making body loss the contributions of MS, since their emissaries were regarded well by the rest of the members.

Two things are evident, though.

One, that MS joins standards bodies as part of a public relations and marketing ploy. They find there is some value in being able to use standards as a way to sell their product (eg, the latest "Office does XML"), but their commitment to adhering to standards and to releasing full specifications of their products, which have become de facto standards, is monotonously disappointing.

Second, while the anti-trust investigation by the U.S Department of Justice was underway and the outcome was subject to some chance, their behavior was better. Unfortunately, it seems as if they already know or don't fear the outcome of the EU investigation, or they might make a better effort to uphold standards, which are the essential ingredient for a competitive software marketplace.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:IBM by REBloomfield · 2003-03-25 03:35 · Score: 1

Except that Java is not the issue here :)
And IBM don't produce a market leading web browser, and therefore don't need to may quite so much attention as Microsoft should be....
Next Apple (pun intended) by oliverthered · 2003-03-25 03:49 · Score: 1

then
IRaq (the 1U windows server)
IRan (the 59's windows server).
IRate (the 'We are the best' windows server)
INovation (Bills russian gymnastic partner in the M$ trials)
ICame, ISaw, IKonqured. (Bill wanking over windows then cutting up the rest of the Kompotition).

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:Microsoft has never followed standards by mattc58 · 2003-03-25 03:59 · Score: 1

I think really more to the point is that Microsoft sets standards. Some of you might not like that Microsoft sets standards through its market power (legally or illegally gained), but they do indeed set standards.

Now as for why they are leaving the Web Services group I don't know. Since they are a pioneer in that it seems a bit strange to me.
Re:IBM by SN74S181 · 2003-03-25 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

When has any commercial concern who produced a 'market leading web browser' paid much attention at all to the W3C? Netscape certainly didn't, back when they produced one. In fact, one of the biggest Netscape innovations was proprietary extensions that only their server technology provided. They had a whole business plan and planned revenue stream built around that notion.

I exclusively use Mozilla these days, so I am quite glad that Netscape failed.
Ms vs. IBM by Burb · 2003-03-25 04:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sun issued a statement condemning the move, saying that "IBM and (Microsoft) have now moved away from a leadership position in Web services standards and become a disruptive force in the industry."
I read this, thought "I bet the slashdotters will denounce Big Bill and leave IBM alone". Was I right?

--
Re:IBM by nagora · 2003-03-25 04:13 · Score: 1

and therefore don't need to may quite so much attention as Microsoft should be
Did you fall asleep and bang your head off the keyboard?
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:Microsoft has never followed standards by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-25 04:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Do they really? Set standards that is?

In order to qualify as a standard I think that it should at least be possible for another vendor to offer an implementation of the standard.

I cant think of any "Standard" that Microsoft has set that anyone else has successfully/easilly actually implemented to make an interoperable client.

Certainly some good efforts have been made, eg. Samba.
Standards Bodies should Standardize by wildfrontiersman · 2003-03-25 04:56 · Score: 1

I'm concerned that standards bodies don't focus more on specific problem domains. W3C, Oasis and WS-I seem to overlap or mesh in disturbing ways. It really should be very clear as to which body we look to for specific technologies, ie. markup, rendering, communicaton, etc. The only reason MS and IBM wouldn't stay and fight for influence on the standard is that they don't respect W3C authority on the technology. Competing standards stall growth and create a huge waste of effort where as strong standards pave the way for remarkable advances.
We don't need any standards... by ptaff · 2003-03-25 05:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Of course standards have no importance...

WMA, BMP, WAV, RLE, were all formats that absolutely necessary. There was no other way before to store that kind of information.

C# is also so important! I mean, there was no language before that could be run in a virtual machine.
Microsoft shuns real time strategy? by cryptor3 · 2003-03-25 05:25 · Score: 1

"MS Withdraws from WC3 Web Services Working Group"
I didn't know that Microsoft had anything against battlenet...
Old MS Joke by Schart · 2003-03-25 05:59 · Score: 4, Funny

This (and the OpenGL thing and... well, a LOT of things MS does) reminds me of this OLD joke I heard quite a few years ago:

Q. How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. None. They simply declare darkness to be the new standard.

GONNNNG!!
mark my words by sydlexic · 2003-03-25 06:59 · Score: 1

this has everything to do with patents. W3C would have been an obstacle and they *definitely* want to try to set up a tollbooth for web services.
MY GAMES! by Bisifiniti · 2003-03-25 08:27 · Score: 1

MS withdraws from WC3? But I thought Warcraft was doing well!
1. Re:MY GAMES! by Yarn · 2003-03-25 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  They were losing, and went off to play counterstrike with their clan :P
  
  --
  -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Re:Microsoft has never followed standards by mattc58 · 2003-03-25 08:58 · Score: 1

ODBC, OLE, COM, COM+, WebServices (they had a big part in it), and the entire Windows interface, to which thousands of other software systems have been written.

And I'm sure I'm forgetting some others.
erf by Lord+Omlette · 2003-03-25 15:07 · Score: 1

Microsoft probably got tired of working with all the Orcs...

--
[o]_O
Cause:The new Patents working draft? by haplo21112 · 2003-03-26 04:17 · Score: 1

I wonder if its not the fact that W3C has done the right thing with the new working draft pretty much banning licensing of patented tech in web standards....:>

--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Dropping out of a standards organization? by nurb432 · 2003-03-26 08:20 · Score: 1

We dont need standards, just make our own !

All kidding aside, they do tend do to this, via the weight they can throw around to force users into the new 'standard'.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----