Wow, you should really back off on the caffein dude.
Regardless of what you may believe about the process used to pass OOXML, it has nothing to do with a discussion of web standards, and it's certainly not an example of MS breaking existing standards.
The part you're missing is the "Pursuant to the implementaiton notes that are cited in 2.3.4 of this document".
That section says:
"Implementation notes for the Microsoft Office 2010 implementation of the Office Open XML File Format, as specified in [ISO/IEC-29500:2008], are described in [MSFT-DII]. These notes describe how Office 2010 applications implement the format and they are organized according to the sections of [ISO/IEC-29500:2008]."
Nice, however, none of those things are, in fact, breaking the standard. Breaking interoperability does not break the standard if the standard is being conformed to. The fact that the standard was inadequate to ensure interoperability is what was at fault.
it's true that IE6 had numerous bugs in it's CSS implementation, but at IE6's release, they were the most standard conformant browser out there. By your argument, every browser in existence breaks the standard because none of them fully conform, and many have bugs.
IE6's problem was that it was left to stagnate. This is a far cry from deliberately breaking the standards. Every subsequent release of IE has improvde standards conformant, and to my knowledge, IE8 is still the single, and only browser to reach 99% conform to CSS 2.1 (the lastest ratified CSS standard).
Granted, IE's conformance may be slanted because the vast majority of the W3 CSS test suite was submitted by Microsoft, but no 3rd parties have shown any other browser to be more compliant either.
So all your weasel wording aside, you have yet to provide any compelling argument that Microsoft has deliberately broken standards, when facts show that at the time MS released any given version of their browser, they have had significantly improved standards conformance over the previous version, and in some cases (such as the current one) have the best conformance to ratified standards.
No, MS's OOXML implementation uses the transitional standard, which is not quite the same thing. Their implementation existed before the standard was created, and mutated into what was accepted.
And I don't believe that MS is claiming that Office supports ISO OOXML. So one cannot break what one is not claiming to support.
Kindof. There were some seriously alpha releases of Mozilla, but nothing stable until after IE6 was released. And even those versions had HUGE compatibility issues.
Oh please, let's not get into "is equivlent" BS. That's just subjective, and isn't in any way accurate.
No. I don't care who you are, or what your opinions. Promoting your own competing standard is *NOT* breaking the other guys standard. Breaking the standard means deliberately implementing it incorrectly, and there is no other way to interpret it.
It's funny, but i'll bet you're one of those people that say "Copyright infringement isn't theft" (which it's not). Call something what it is. If it's bad, it's bad without equating it to something diferent that is also bad.
The primary effect of a monopoly running amok is the destruction of most other players in the market. MS accomplished that.
Actually, no.. they didn't. If that were true, why are there so many browsers and media players today?
What a monopoly seems to do (and then, only if the monopoly product is "good enough") is to destroy the wounded gazelles... the products that aren't all that good and give no compelling reasons for users to switch away from the bundled version.
Once the bundled version becomes a monopoly, then even products with compelling reasons have a hard time, but as can be seen in this case, they do chip away at the incumbent.
I think we all owe microsoft a HUGE debt of gratitude for destroying Netscape. Without that, Mozilla would have never been born, and Firefox would have never happened, and Chrome would have never happened.
In other words, the non-Microsoft market would have continued with their "browser extension of the week" methodology to lock people into their products, and would not have been forced to use standards conformance as a competition mechanism.
Well, it's their fault for letting IE stagnate, but yeah. And the W3C didn't reverse the spec, they clarified it. It was previously vague and could be interpreted in different ways.
The specs have gotten better with time, and the other major browsers have followed suit. IE didn't. But again, that's not the same thing as claiming they "deliberately broke" the standards. Though you can say they deliberately ignored them.
Really? What standards does OOXML break? Geez people, seriously? Does blind hatred of Microsoft make you stupid? Does this argument even make ANY sense?
Regarding the shared code and such, browsers use a *LOT* of private memory, that was one reason why Firefox used a ton of memory a few years ago because it cached forward and back pages. The shared code is relatively insignificant compared to the memory used for everything else.
Take Firefox, and open 20 pages in seperate windows. Check out the private memory usage statistics.
At some point, you have to realize that you're wasting more resources swimming against the current. Developers are not going to magically start using less resources over time, they will continue to use more. Fighting that will only give you more stress and keep you continually in a bad mood. It's a fight you can't win.
Also, you must not do much with your browsers, because there is no way I could shut down, even with the browser remembering my pages, and not be highly annoyed. Not only do you lose your page state (such as where you are on the page, or maybe a post you're working on in an edit field) but you also have to deal with logging back in to sites that use session cookies for login (unless you're stupid enough to check the "always log me in automatically" button. Then, you have to re-navigate back to where you were because your page is most likely lost due to the re-login.
No, I would not be able to deal with having to shut down my browser (or have the whole thing crash) when one tab crashes... Trust me, use that feature for a while, and you will learn to find it invaluable no matter what you think right now.
Regarding the shared code and such, browsers use a *LOT* of private memory, that was one reason why Firefox used a ton of memory a few years ago because it cached forward and back pages. The shared code is relatively insignificant compared to the memory used for everything else.
By the way, I know you were being sarcastic, but ActiveX is actually a standard maintained by the Open Group.. The same people that maintained X Windows for years (not sure if they still do). And ActiveX had all the same problems that Netscape plugins had, although those had to be manually installed (there is nothing in ActiveX that requires automatic installation, that's just something IE did).
The fact is, ActiveX (or something like it) was needed back then. Less so, now.. but many corporate environemnts continue to need additional functionality that's not available in the browser. For the internet, ActiveX is (and should be) largely dead, though plug-ins are still needed for things like Flash, Silverlight, even things like the Chrome Frame and SVG plug-ins would not be possible without such an interface.
It's simply impossible to make a native plug-in interface that's secure. The best you can do is make it so difficult to install that most people won't bother unless it's really really important.
I don't get this "It's ok to lie about Microsoft because they suck" attitude. Stating the truth isn't "Defending and making excuses", it's being.. you know.. truthful.. and not exagerating to make a company that is already bad look worse for the sake of what? I don't really know why you feel the need to embellish and exagerate, and spew insults at people that don't do the same.
Is it too much to simply be truthful? The truth is bad enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you should really back off on the caffein dude.
Regardless of what you may believe about the process used to pass OOXML, it has nothing to do with a discussion of web standards, and it's certainly not an example of MS breaking existing standards.
So why change the subject?
The part you're missing is the "Pursuant to the implementaiton notes that are cited in 2.3.4 of this document".
That section says:
"Implementation notes for the Microsoft Office 2010 implementation of the Office Open XML File
Format, as specified in [ISO/IEC-29500:2008], are described in [MSFT-DII]. These notes describe
how Office 2010 applications implement the format and they are organized according to the sections
of [ISO/IEC-29500:2008]."
That link goes to this site:
http://www.documentinteropinitiative.org/
And that site covers all the interoperability issues.
claim, not complain.
Where exactly did Microsoft complain that they were ISO OOXML compliant?
"your own" means "You created it". For example, Sun promoting ODF is Sun promoting it's own standard.
Nice, however, none of those things are, in fact, breaking the standard. Breaking interoperability does not break the standard if the standard is being conformed to. The fact that the standard was inadequate to ensure interoperability is what was at fault.
it's true that IE6 had numerous bugs in it's CSS implementation, but at IE6's release, they were the most standard conformant browser out there. By your argument, every browser in existence breaks the standard because none of them fully conform, and many have bugs.
IE6's problem was that it was left to stagnate. This is a far cry from deliberately breaking the standards. Every subsequent release of IE has improvde standards conformant, and to my knowledge, IE8 is still the single, and only browser to reach 99% conform to CSS 2.1 (the lastest ratified CSS standard).
Granted, IE's conformance may be slanted because the vast majority of the W3 CSS test suite was submitted by Microsoft, but no 3rd parties have shown any other browser to be more compliant either.
For example:
http://www.webdevout.net/browser-support-summary?IE8=on&FX2=on&FX3=on&OP9=on&uas=CUSTOM
Unfortunately, Chrome is not on the list.
So all your weasel wording aside, you have yet to provide any compelling argument that Microsoft has deliberately broken standards, when facts show that at the time MS released any given version of their browser, they have had significantly improved standards conformance over the previous version, and in some cases (such as the current one) have the best conformance to ratified standards.
According to the graph in the linked article, Opera has exactly the same share it's had for the last 16 months.
I said a 4MB stick. Not 4MB.
Neither is "Do formulas like OpenOffice.org".
No, MS's OOXML implementation uses the transitional standard, which is not quite the same thing. Their implementation existed before the standard was created, and mutated into what was accepted.
And I don't believe that MS is claiming that Office supports ISO OOXML. So one cannot break what one is not claiming to support.
One in which a document is submitted to a standards body by a company. It happens all the time.
Kindof. There were some seriously alpha releases of Mozilla, but nothing stable until after IE6 was released. And even those versions had HUGE compatibility issues.
Yeah, in 1996 I paid $600 for a 4MB stick (though 4 1MB sticks were significantly less)
Ummmm.. what?
ASP is a server side framework. It's not anything like ActiveX. It's the same sort of technology as PHP.
Oh please, let's not get into "is equivlent" BS. That's just subjective, and isn't in any way accurate.
No. I don't care who you are, or what your opinions. Promoting your own competing standard is *NOT* breaking the other guys standard. Breaking the standard means deliberately implementing it incorrectly, and there is no other way to interpret it.
It's funny, but i'll bet you're one of those people that say "Copyright infringement isn't theft" (which it's not). Call something what it is. If it's bad, it's bad without equating it to something diferent that is also bad.
The primary effect of a monopoly running amok is the destruction of most other players in the market. MS accomplished that.
Actually, no.. they didn't. If that were true, why are there so many browsers and media players today?
What a monopoly seems to do (and then, only if the monopoly product is "good enough") is to destroy the wounded gazelles... the products that aren't all that good and give no compelling reasons for users to switch away from the bundled version.
Once the bundled version becomes a monopoly, then even products with compelling reasons have a hard time, but as can be seen in this case, they do chip away at the incumbent.
I think we all owe microsoft a HUGE debt of gratitude for destroying Netscape. Without that, Mozilla would have never been born, and Firefox would have never happened, and Chrome would have never happened.
In other words, the non-Microsoft market would have continued with their "browser extension of the week" methodology to lock people into their products, and would not have been forced to use standards conformance as a competition mechanism.
Well, it's their fault for letting IE stagnate, but yeah. And the W3C didn't reverse the spec, they clarified it. It was previously vague and could be interpreted in different ways.
The specs have gotten better with time, and the other major browsers have followed suit. IE didn't. But again, that's not the same thing as claiming they "deliberately broke" the standards. Though you can say they deliberately ignored them.
Yes, IE5 Mac was beter than IE5 Windows, but IE6 actually was significantly better than both.
Really? What standards does OOXML break? Geez people, seriously? Does blind hatred of Microsoft make you stupid? Does this argument even make ANY sense?
I think you don't really understand what "breaks standards" actually means. Submitting and championing your own standard is not "breaking standards".
The default browser for android phones is a google browser, chrome based...
Regarding the shared code and such, browsers use a *LOT* of private memory, that was one reason why Firefox used a ton of memory a few years ago because it cached forward and back pages. The shared code is relatively insignificant compared to the memory used for everything else.
Take Firefox, and open 20 pages in seperate windows. Check out the private memory usage statistics.
At some point, you have to realize that you're wasting more resources swimming against the current. Developers are not going to magically start using less resources over time, they will continue to use more. Fighting that will only give you more stress and keep you continually in a bad mood. It's a fight you can't win.
Also, you must not do much with your browsers, because there is no way I could shut down, even with the browser remembering my pages, and not be highly annoyed. Not only do you lose your page state (such as where you are on the page, or maybe a post you're working on in an edit field) but you also have to deal with logging back in to sites that use session cookies for login (unless you're stupid enough to check the "always log me in automatically" button. Then, you have to re-navigate back to where you were because your page is most likely lost due to the re-login.
No, I would not be able to deal with having to shut down my browser (or have the whole thing crash) when one tab crashes... Trust me, use that feature for a while, and you will learn to find it invaluable no matter what you think right now.
Regarding the shared code and such, browsers use a *LOT* of private memory, that was one reason why Firefox used a ton of memory a few years ago because it cached forward and back pages. The shared code is relatively insignificant compared to the memory used for everything else.
By the way, I know you were being sarcastic, but ActiveX is actually a standard maintained by the Open Group.. The same people that maintained X Windows for years (not sure if they still do). And ActiveX had all the same problems that Netscape plugins had, although those had to be manually installed (there is nothing in ActiveX that requires automatic installation, that's just something IE did).
The fact is, ActiveX (or something like it) was needed back then. Less so, now.. but many corporate environemnts continue to need additional functionality that's not available in the browser. For the internet, ActiveX is (and should be) largely dead, though plug-ins are still needed for things like Flash, Silverlight, even things like the Chrome Frame and SVG plug-ins would not be possible without such an interface.
It's simply impossible to make a native plug-in interface that's secure. The best you can do is make it so difficult to install that most people won't bother unless it's really really important.
I don't get this "It's ok to lie about Microsoft because they suck" attitude. Stating the truth isn't "Defending and making excuses", it's being.. you know.. truthful.. and not exagerating to make a company that is already bad look worse for the sake of what? I don't really know why you feel the need to embellish and exagerate, and spew insults at people that don't do the same.
Is it too much to simply be truthful? The truth is bad enough.