Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Proposes RSS Extension
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Chief Technical Officer Ray Ozzie said this week that his company is working on a new extension to RSS that would help users with different contact and calendar software and services synchronize each other's information." From the article: "If this sounds familiar to those using IBM's Lotus Notes, it should. SSE was conceived after Microsoft's recently recruited chief technology officer Ray Ozzie brainstormed with members of the Exchange, Outlook, MSN, Windows Mobile and Messenger Communicator product teams shortly after he joined."
Why must they add their own custom extension to everything? It seems their behaviour (almost) always ends up leaving security holes in people's machines.
...would help users with different contact and calendar software and services synchronize each other's information.
...would help users with different Miscrosoft contact and calendar software and services synchronize each other's information.
Here, let me help you with that. I think what you really meant was this:
--- witty signature
May I point out that when IE extended the abilities of the WWW, we ended up with worms and exploits up the wazoo. Is RSS relatively safe as it is now, and if so, why muck with it? Just what we'd need is a worm that can exploit a technology designed to deliver new information to everyone at once.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Microsoft's "new" RSS format will be XML based, it will turn out in six months that they have filed a patent on it, they will offer a RAND license, they'll submit it as an ECMA standard, and they'll proclaim that it's open. Microsoft will recruit Apple and Oracle to sign up for "free" licenses of their "standard" and proudly announce their adoption of it.
And then Microsoft will try to create FUD (through strategically placed speakers) within the open source community whether it is really possible for open source software to implement their "open" standard. They'll do this in an effort to scare away commercial users from adopting open source software based on the "open standard".
That way, they'll try to achieve the appearance and widespread adoption of an "open" standard while still interfering with its open source implementation.
Right. So anytime Microsoft looks to add to an open-standard (you know, the thing open standards are meant to enable) they shouldn't be allowed? Wow, talk about openness. It's open for everyone, except those we dislike.
Yes, Microsoft does have a habit of destroying standards by extending them. But they're going to do this regardless. They might as well work through a standards committee, and there isn't any indication that this will result in a proprietry product becoming part of the standard. Is there any reason other then "Cause Microsoft is evil" to not consider adding this extension to the standard?
So anytime Microsoft looks to add to an open-standard (you know, the thing open standards are meant to enable) they shouldn't be allowed?
Correct.
Wow, talk about openness. It's open for everyone, except those we dislike.
It's open for everyone, except those whom have repeatedly shown their distain for standards and for those whom have repeatedly and purposefully corrupted the standards process with the expressed intent of extinguishing said standards.
So let me guess: they'll stick binary data in RSS.
Then we have remote execution via RSS, system automation via RSS, a rootkit you never realized was there via RSS. FFS, use the tool for what it was intended, not a hacked-up stealth technology for taking over blogs and putting pretty pictures all over it.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I smell IPX.
>I can't wait to see this one.
You don't have to wait, it is already published. Instead of just spouting off, go read the spec and judge it on its technical merits, instead of adding another needless me too "MS sucks so this must suck" post.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/rss/sse/
Then come back and give a reasoned opinion about the flaws in the proposed extension.
Heh. there are so many incompatible and somewhat-compatible versions and implementations of RSS out there that they can't make the situation worse (actually, they're actively trying to clean up the RSS scene by making IE7 reject malformed XML... that'll make a whole lot of people fix their shit real quick).
May I point out that when IE extended the abilities of the WWW, we ended up with worms and exploits up the wazoo.
XMLHttpRequest was one of those extensions and it's given us Gmail and other "AJAX" interfaces. Not all extension is bad; if it was how the heck would the industry progress?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Microsoft is big because it defines the standards.
No, Microsfot is big because they picked up IBM's fumble and used that advantage to bugger the third-party apps developers, and hold the hardware companies hostage.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Hey! I've got a great new extension for our Microsoft friends. I call it "TTF", or "The Third Finger." And it's so efficient it only requires one-fifth the bandwidth of that needed for an entire spanking.
Please guys. Stop breaking things.
The WONDERFUL extensions to LDAP, DNS, DHCP, and many more? UGH
while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
I'm perfectly happy for them to add to an open standard. Just as long as their additions are kept as open as the standard was. Otherwise (for example if they patent their extensions) they're just leeching off the hard work of others, and historically such actions have mostly been anticompetitive too.
I await the licensing of these extensions. Do you think they'll be GPL compatible?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
As to software implementations, Microsoft is not aware of any patent claims it owns or controls that would be necessarily infringed by a software implementation that conforms to the specification's extensions. If Microsoft later becomes aware of any such necessary patent claims, Microsoft also agrees to offer a royalty-free patent license on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions to any such patent claims for the purpose of publishing and consuming the extensions set out in the specification.
Is this the same reasonable and non-discriminatory terms that exclude open source from other MS extentions etc?
In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
Why? Well, simply because we don't like Microsoft."
More like, we don't trust Microsoft. Keep in mind that this animosity is not undeserved.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So they don't think they have any patents,
You're being somewhat naive; what M$ says and does are often completely different. It's a large organisation, different people have different opinions and given the mess that is the current patent system a submarine patent could easily turn up.
and even if it turns out they do, licenses are granted under RAND terms.
RAND terms to M$ often means "(except GPL)" and "with lots of arbitrary restrictions and sufficient legal roadblocks to make fair competition impossible."
They could've published a patent license as an addendum to the specification license, even though they claim they know of no relevant patents. The fact that they didn't is telling. I could be generous and say it's an oversight or bureaucratic inertia or a small risk that M$ does not want to take but given M$' history I'm not going to be generous and will assume until proven otherwise it's M$ playing their cards close to their chest as usual.
If M$ published a patent license with the final spec, and make legally clear that there are no possible legal and commercial roadblocks to others implementing and interroperating with the spec then that would be worth something.
---
Keep your options open!
Because supporting a standard is nothing you can brag to potential customers about. Extending $BUZZWORD so that it does things that are extremely necessary ever since We Said So gives the company the image of someone who gets the things done that other people couldn't.
I say it's at least 70% marketing.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
And, similar to this latest proposal, it's based upon existing standards which might help in curbing abuse.
Like kerberos? Like CSS?
I agree that the damage MS can do here is limited due to the nature of the proposed standard, but with MS, anything they promote as "open" (either open source or open standard) needs to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is based on their past behavior. I don't mean to say that seeking gain is wrong, just that with some corporations, you need to be more careful (from an open source/open standards point of view) than with others.
I fail to see how Microsoft can take an open, XML-based, plain text format that is ratified in numerous RFCs, and somehow "corrupt it" amd make it unuseable by adding some extra extentions.
Hell, these extentions would not even break existing clients, the parser would just not do anything with the new nodes and attributes!
But on the other hand, you are Evolution and want to sync with Outlook, this would be *great*.
Honestly, with you guys Microsoft is damned if they to (try to create an open standard for synching datebooks via RSS) and damned if they don't (keep their systems proprietary and incompatable).
Microsoft's RSS Checklist:
1) Embrace
2) Extend
3) Extinguish