Slashdot Mirror
Rivals Mock Microsoft's 'Native HTML5' Claims
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.'"
I think what they mean is they are employing natives in third world countries to write their HTML.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
n/t
Of course there's no such thing as complete HTML5 either since it's still a draft.
Fear is the mind killer.
"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!
You should ask M$ that question.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
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.
http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/11/22/direct2d-hardware-rendering-a-browser
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...
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.
http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
...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.
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#.
Clearly this was not intended to be a factual statement.
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.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
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.
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.
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.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
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.
The problem with that is that it's just testing specific features, and it tends to spend a lot of time (and points) on things that aren't typically relevant, but may (or may not) even make it into the final HTML 5 spec. The more important features are simply glanced over, giving them 1-2 points, while stupid things are given 20+ points that the vast majority of sites will never use. That site is nice as a checklist, but terrible at determining how well a browser is fit for today's and tomorrow's web pages.
You can make up your own opinions but you cannot make up facts. You are entirely wrong here. What is it that gives you the confidence to just post lies when there are plenty of people around that know better? Seriously?!
Firefox usesvarious DirectX APIs on Windows7 and Vista and XP and uses OpenGL for Mac and Linux. Where it's incomplete it WILL be completed in upcoming versions.
It's true, the key requirement for mainstream success for a Web browser is vim keybindings. The public demands them.
In fact, my grandmother was just asking me which browsers offered vim keybindings so she would know what to use to browse her favorite scrapbooking site. That meant I had to beat her to death with a table lamp, of course. People should know better than to ask questions like that to an emacs user.
Read my blog.