Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Bad News on IE6 XML Support
 Joshua: I use a lot of Microsoft products and consider myself one of your customers. As a customer, I can tell you that I was not happy when I opened up one of my XML documents (which renders fine in IE) in newly-installed Netscape 6.1 and Netscape crashed. I wasn't quite sure whether it was a Netscape problem or a problem with my document. As it turns out, its not a Netscape problem, it is a problem with illegal characters in the document (again, which renders just fine in IE). There are a number of people who have posted on this list who have more technical expertise than I. I believe they have made a number of excellent ponts, to the extent that having followed this thread, I think the following: Joshua Allen wrote: >A. Allowing users to look at "broken" XML files in the browser without > fatally failing, when those documents contain low-range ASCII > characters. This is bad. See comments below. > B. Failing when users try to view XML in the browser, when there are > characters above 0x10000. This is bad. See comments below. > C. Not recognizing a mime type which does not exist, and recognizing > another that also does not exist, but is used in most browsers. I think you've made your case, at least until the mime type is registered. > D. Being "mean and evil" I don't think you, personally, are mean and evil, nor do I think Microsoft is mean or evil. Microsoft and its employees, like any other private company, have an obligation to work for the best interest of the company and its shareholders. Although there are some social commentators that believe companies should have a social concious and should look out for the greater community good, companies do not generally have such an obligation. The obligation is to the shareholder. The counterbalance to this obligation is that the company can be held liable for certain negligent, reckless, and intentional acts, and there are express prohibitions against engaging in illegal acts. For instance, company employees cannot commit fraud in the name of shareholders. And, indeed, if one does, then the company or the employee, or both, may be subject to civil, or sometimes even criminal, liabilities. Like it or not, in its pursuit of sharholder interest, Microsoft's behavior has raised the eyebrows of U.S. Federal and State Government and now more recently, the European Union. Based on what I've read on this thread, I think "[a]llowing "users to look at "broken" XML files in the browser without fatally failing" (your words above) is the type of anti-competitive behavior that people, including your customers, would like to stop. What it means is Browser Wars II. I'm not an anti-trust lawyer, so I can't say whether it is anti-competitive in the sense of violating U.S. Anti-trust laws, but I think it would certainly raise additional eyebrows if DOJ laywers knew that Microsoft has made a concious decision to deviate from a standard that it helped develop, that is ostensibly agrees to, that it claims it adheres to in its marketing, and that just happens to allow Micrsoft browsers to render a larger percentage of "documents" than its competitor's browsers, when its competitors are follwing the agreed standanrd and Microsoft is not. Aside from anti-trust concerns, Microsoft might also want to consider what other legal action might be taken against it. Lawyers are paid to dream up "causes of action" (i.e., ways to sue individuals and entiteis -- especially entities with deep pockets). Indeed, it is not difficult to see how these facts would fit into a claims of fraud, misrepresentation, theft by fraud, perhaps even products liability. It is difficult to see how any one individual or company would sue Microsoft. However, there are class actions that can be filed when enough companies or individuals are harmed by the same behavior or product. To the extent that Microsoft is costing people money and resources because they must spend time supporting deviations from the standard (in any product), I think Microsoft puts itself in a precarious position. Yes, all software has bugs. But, an unintentional bug is much different than an intentional decision to deviate from an industry standard. When MSXML parses an XML file and finds an error, it know exactly where that error occurred and what that error is. As a Microsoft customer, I would prefer to see a pop up box on a screen telling me what the problem is with my document and a link to a help file that tells me how to fix it, rather than have to keep up with all the variances in browsers from now until eternity. As a lawyer, if I were litigating, I would use this fact to establish knowledge, intent, and the ability to remedy without great cost and difficult, which as far as I'm concerned, is the fine line between a bug and actionable conduct. The bottom line, I think, is -- is it worth it? Is it worth another browser war? Is it worth more litigation? Is it worh the loss of goodwill in the comunity and all the pot-shots on mailing lists and at conferences? As an aside, the real, long-term solution to this sort of problem is a neutral organization that does conformance testing and brands products with a seal of approval. Conformance testing is not a Microsoft problem, however -- it is a community problem. Todd Winchel "Todd" Vincent III Attorney and Technical Consultant Project Director, E-CT-Filing Project Georgia State University College of Law US Phone: 404.651.4297 US Cell: 404.822.4668 US Voice Mail: 770.216.1633 US Fax: 770.216.1633 Email: winchel@m... 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
