Microsoft and Interoperability: The Hidden Threat
Jens Meiert, March 20, 2008.
This entry is filed under Web Development.
Microsoft’s Interoperability Principles are not only a nice read, they’re in fact a great signal. I could stop writing now if there wasn’t at least one thing that raises doubts though, namely the “Extensions” passage under “Support for Standards”:
Microsoft will document extensions to a standard implemented in its high-volume products where such extensions are relevant to interoperability with other implementations of that standard. Microsoft will publish the extension specifications for the developer community on its website. In some cases Microsoft will also submit these extensions to the relevant standard-setting organization. These steps will enable developers who wish to do so to robustly interoperate with Microsoft’s enhanced implementation of a standard.
This might sound quite innocent and like a perfectly reasonable thing, but it probably isn’t: It implies proprietary updates and changes again that have not been developed in an open process, by reaching consensus, and by requiring different implementations upfront. It means a “hidden threat” since we do not necessarily have good examples in mind when thinking about former standard deviations Microsoft not just proposed but implemented; don’t think autocomplete and Web Forms 2.0, think for example parsed HTML comments to worsen maintainability instead.
There certainly are positive examples for software vendors going it alone, but there also are many negative examples where standards ignorance caused quite more than just inconveniences. Microsoft would probably be better off and would do us all a favor when it didn’t introduce an “extensions to standards policy” but rather committed solely to supporting institutions issuing standards. Maybe work on future HTML, CSS, and Co. would benefit from a combined effort to extend standards where they really are elaborated.
Read More
Enjoy some popular posts, probably including contemporaries:
Comments
-
On March 20, 14:14 CET, Robert said:
“Embrace, extend and extinguish”. Tell news
-
On March 20, 15:40 CET, lynne said:
“steps will facilitate compatibility for customers in real-world scenarios.” … I am curious to see how this really supports the “development community”. Thanks for that link I haven’t took the time to read over it till this post. But it will (like always) bring some interesting questions to the table with Microsoft.
-
On March 21, 19:01 CET, Jens Meiert said:
I’m sorry, Robert
Actually, Lynne, Microsoft expresses nice intentions, and the principles they published make a lot of sense. These “extensions” are really what might worry us the most …
-
On March 22, 20:00 CET, Markus said:
I hope that you’re not right and Microsoft shows more engagement within the W3C! Things will stay very exciting… hope not too exciting.
-
On March 28, 5:55 CET, jessica said:
I think I am with the herd on this one. I do not think that there has been enough initiative (at least not as much as there could be) in regards to Microsofts engagement. Although Microsoft shouldn’t be made to sound utterly terrible as is being put out by certain circles they are just everyone who could be raising the bar. I am curious to see where this goes. Jens I am a little more curious to understand why you feel it is the extensions that we should be worried about and not the core principle. If I overlooked something please do not divulge and I will re-read the articles. exciting post!
-
On April 8, 17:25 CEST, Susan Shepherd said:
I do would like t see where this is going, whether we like it or not Microsoft is the pioneer of www enabling than the others. Most open source programs for browsers are (grudgingly) inspired by it. MS is just more marketing and profit savvy (my guess it’s why they’re being vague in the Support Standards).
