Microsoft exec defends RSS rebranding

Macworld ^ | August 15, 2005 | Elizabeth Montalbano

[Panerai]

A Microsoft Network (MSN) executive is defending Microsoft’s rebranding of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) into “Web feeds” after a flurry of Microsoft bloggers accused the software giant of trying to recast the Web-site syndication technology in its own image.

In a recent post on his Web log “Torres Talking,” Mike Torres, MSN Spaces lead program manager, made a clear distinction between the branding of the RSS technology and the underlying technology itself. He also said that Microsoft is adding its own functionality to RSS in the version the company is implementing in Internet Explorer (IE) 7. Because of this, its renaming of RSS is not a sign the company is trying to remake the technology for its own purposes but rather a way to make a distinction between RSS and a feature of IE.

RSS is primarily used by Web loggers and Web-based news publishers to keep subscribers informed when new Web log entries or news articles have been posted to Web sites. Microsoft is adding RSS functionality to the next version of Windows, Windows Vista, primarily through the IE 7 version of its Web browser. Both Windows Vista and IE 7 betas are available now.

“Just because one team at Microsoft (in this case, the IE team) is grappling with the naming of a single feature in a single product (that does a lot more than just RSS), it doesn’t automatically mean we are trying to ‘reinvent the technology,’ Torres wrote in a Web log posting on Aug. 9.

Torres was responding to a post the same day by Dave Winer in his Web log Scripting News that accused big software companies such as Microsoft and Google of messing with technology they did not invent, a move he called “childish and self-defeating.”

[Terpfen]

“Just because one team at Microsoft (in this case, the IE team) is grappling with the naming of a single feature in a single product (that does a lot more than just RSS), it doesn’t automatically mean we are trying to ‘reinvent the technology,’ Torres wrote in a Web log posting on Aug. 9.

Except, the IE team has a nice long history of doing whatever they want, standards-be-damned.

If Microsoft is really interested in just popularizing the technology, why not just write up an introduction to RSS and Atom, and automatically load it in a dialog box of some sorts when IE7 detects a feed for the first time? "IE7 has detected an RSS feed. Would you like to subscribe to this? (Yes) (No) (What is RSS?)" Simple. Just like RSS.

[6SJ7]

Web feeds? Sounds like something made by Purina.

[thoughtomator]

It's not like we haven't seen this one before from Microfraud... they did it with HTML, JavaScript, and Java, at which point I said "Screw it, if I'm going to be forced to work with proprietary technology, I'll choose one from IBM."

[glorgau]

Familiar strategy - Embrace, extend and extinguish . Just Microsoft being Microsoft.

[Clock King]

Microsoft couldn't invent a paperbag now. WHY do they have to take every new idea from the Computer Industry and change it by "en-hance-ments"? I use windows because it's the only game in town and quite frankly, Linux isn't ready for prime time yet. But Micro$oft are a bunch of looters IMO.

[savedbygrace]

its renaming of RSS is not a sign the company is trying to remake the technology for its own purposes but rather a way to make a distinction between RSS and a feature of IE.

A distinction without a difference.

Besides, here MS is taking something named Really Simply Syndication, and complicating it, betcha.

[Psycho_Bunny]

“Just because one team at Microsoft (in this case, the IE team) is grappling with the naming of a single feature in a single product (that does a lot more than just RSS), it doesn’t automatically mean we are trying to ‘reinvent the technology,’ Torres wrote

I'm calling "Bullsh!t" on that....based on Microsoft's history since....forever...that's exactly what everyone in the technology sector would expect Microsoft to do.

And frankly, I don't mind that they do it.  I just mind that they lie about it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Linux isn't ready for prime time yet.

What exactly do you do with your computer?

I'm using Knoppix right now. One of the big advantages of Knoppix is that every time you boot up you are in a clean install.

With Windows, you accumulate more and more viruses and corrupted files over time.

That alone is a tremendous advantage.

[Bush2000]

Except, the IE team has a nice long history of doing whatever they want, standards-be-damned.

And who could blame them? The standards are irrelevant, since practically no browser supports all of them.

[Terpfen]

The standards are irrelevant, since practically no browser supports all of them.

Sorry, but no. Standards are crucial. The web should not render one way in one browser, and another way in one browser. All Microsoft's done by screwing with the W3C standards is to give competing browsers another bullet point in their advertisement fact sheets: "W3C standards-compliant! View the web how it was meant to be seen!" And of course, it screws with web developers, since they now have to decide if they want to support the W3C standards or code for IE's bugged rendering. This ultimately affects you and I.

Whether or not all browsers keep up to date with the W3C is less of an issue compared to whether or not they should at least implement them. I should not have to load IE to properly view one page, then load Firefox or Opera or Safari to properly view another. Period.

Back on the topic, the good news is that Microsoft's backed off its RSS rebranding idea... for now.

[Bush2000]

Whether or not all browsers keep up to date with the W3C is less of an issue compared to whether or not they should at least implement them. I should not have to load IE to properly view one page, then load Firefox or Opera or Safari to properly view another. Period.

Of course, your comments ignore the fact that practically no browser complies. So it's a moot point.

[VeniVidiVici]

Here. This will do the same thing and the equipment is cheaper:

http://store1.yimg.com/I/yhst-79017109961515_1857_1282639

[Terpfen]

Of course, your comments ignore the fact that practically no browser complies. So it's a moot point.

Actually, most browsers DO comply. If you're referring to how every browser fails the Acid2 test, that would be due to two factors: one, the test uses some pretty obscure rendering techniques that simply weren't a priority for browser engines to support right away. Second, Acid2 also includes some newer rendering, and given that we've established browsers are a couple of years behind the W3C's recommendations at best, it's a no-brainer they won't pass.

Would it be great if W3C recommendations were implemented immediately and browsers were updated mere hours after the W3C ratifies a new standard? Sure. Too bad we live in an imperfect world. At least some browsers are trying to make it a little less imperfect.

[Bush2000]

Actually, most browsers DO comply. If you're referring to how every browser fails the Acid2 test, that would be due to two factors: one, the test uses some pretty obscure rendering techniques that simply weren't a priority for browser engines to support right away. Second, Acid2 also includes some newer rendering, and given that we've established browsers are a couple of years behind the W3C's recommendations at best, it's a no-brainer they won't pass.

So, in one breath, you claim that most browsers DO comply and, in the next, you acknowledge that none of them pass the compliance test. Hilarious. Do you do stand-up?

[Terpfen]

So, in one breath, you claim that most browsers DO comply and, in the next, you acknowledge that none of them pass the compliance test.

Your deliberate methods of generalizing and distorting posts just to continue an argument are starting to get a little annoying. Of course, this could be honest ignorance and inability to conceive of supporting something that doesn't have a Microsoft logo on it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and review my points, making sure to type slowly so that you can keep up.

1. Web browsers should compete on features, not differing standards of page rendering. Therefore, supporting one standard--the W3C's--is crucial.

2. Not every browser has been around since the beginning of the WWW. Therefore, browser vendors will and should select which features their browser will support, and implement them according to the W3C's recommendations, as opposed to their own proprietary methods.

3. Acid2 tests brand-new rendering techniques, few of which have have been around long enough to be supported by any web browser. Should browsers pass this test? Absolutely. The best way to pass Acid2 is to continually implement the W3C's standards, passing Acid2 as a result of an improved product. This, of course, takes time. By the way, good job placing importance on Acid2 when you said before that the W3C's standards are useless: excellent contradiction of yourself.

Looking forward to your next spinning. You usually produce some hilarious posts.

[Bush2000]

Your deliberate methods of generalizing and distorting posts just to continue an argument are starting to get a little annoying.

Here's a tissue, Tito. Have yourself a good cry.

Of course, this could be honest ignorance and inability to conceive of supporting something that doesn't have a Microsoft logo on it.

Pot, meet kettle. You're such a fervent ABMer that I half expect froth and spittle to emit from your posts...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and review my points, making sure to type slowly so that you can keep up.

Very generous of you. Next, work on making your posts not blatantly self-contradicting.

1. Web browsers should compete on features, not differing standards of page rendering. Therefore, supporting one standard--the W3C's--is crucial.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Again, as I pointed out originally, you're in Fantasyland, pal. Look at the compatibility matrix. None of the browsers supports all of the technologies required for W3C standardization.

2. Not every browser has been around since the beginning of the WWW. Therefore, browser vendors will and should select which features their browser will support, and implement them according to the W3C's recommendations, as opposed to their own proprietary methods.

Then have the courage to admit that what you're asking for is not a realistic expectation (my original point).

3. Acid2 tests brand-new rendering techniques, few of which have have been around long enough to be supported by any web browser.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Acid2 tests a lot of browser features, including CSS.

The best way to pass Acid2 is to continually implement the W3C's standards, passing Acid2 as a result of an improved product. This, of course, takes time.

Yeah, but since older browsers aren't being updated, that ain't gonna happen; Ergo...

By the way, good job placing importance on Acid2 when you said before that the W3C's standards are useless: excellent contradiction of yourself.

You're confused. I never said that Acid2 was "important".

[Terpfen]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Again, as I pointed out originally, you're in Fantasyland, pal. Look at the compatibility matrix. None of the browsers supports all of the technologies required for W3C standardization.

None of the browsers support the very latest W3C standards. This is different from not supporting the W3C at all, which you advocate.

Then have the courage to admit that what you're asking for is not a realistic expectation (my original point).

Your original point was that the W3C should be ignored, not that it's unreasonable to expect W3C compliance. It is fully realistic to expect browsers, as they update, to support new W3C standards. The upcoming Firefox 1.5 has nearly two years of such updates and improvements.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Acid2 tests a lot of browser features, including CSS.

Er... no, it isn't an oversimplication: it's the truth. The point of Acid2 is to test compliance for brand-new rendering code. While it of course includes CSS (how could it NOT?), the point of the test isn't to validate CSS1.

You're confused. I never said that Acid2 was "important".

You never had to expressly say Acid2 is important in order to place importance upon it--a crucial distinction of the English language, as well as a result of your attempts to defend deviation from the W3C.

Thanks for the laughs! I appreciate it.