Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft The Internet

MS Withdraws From WC3 Web Services Working Group 47

Posted by timothy from the rather-withdrawn dept.
slashusrslashbin writes "CNet is reporting that Microsoft has broken with a key Web Services standard effort. Apparently the W3C 'is not the only vehicle in which to impact and evaluate a set of technologies.' Evaluating them in a massive monopoly is probably just as good..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Withdraws From WC3 Web Services Working Group More

MS Withdraws From WC3 Web Services Working Group

Comments Filter:

  • surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by den_erpel ( 140080 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @10:38AM (#5590777) Homepage Journal
    After their withdrawal of the OpenGL consortium or board, this is not a surprise.

    Afterall microsoft _is_ the standard, why should you have independent standard committees?? :(
    • then
      IRaq (the 1U windows server)
      IRan (the 59's windows server).
      IRate (the 'We are the best' windows server)
      INovation (Bills russian gymnastic partner in the M$ trials)
      ICame, ISaw, IKonqured. (Bill wanking over windows then cutting up the rest of the Kompotition).
    • you're wrong Microsoft are increasingly committed to standards. Office 2003 will save to XML, the evolution of webservices and most importantly Microsoft proved with the CLI [ecma-international.org] and the C# [ecma-international.org] language that it was possible to create a powerful foundation for many languages to inter-operate. We will always have that. Even if changes happened in the platform which were undocumented, the existing platform would a value on its own.
      • Office 2003 XML has been reported to be almost worthless to non-M$ apps. CLI and C# are great standards, but Microsoft will extend the base classes to the point of complete uninteroperability as quickly as they can, after they get a sufficient user base. Mono can be the answer, if they can get enough of the base classes working before Microsoft extends their own spec.

        • Re:surprise? (Score:3, Informative)

          by The Bungi ( 221687 )
          Office 2003 XML has been reported to be almost worthless to non-M$ apps.

          If you're referring to the "reporting" done here in Slashdot, think again. The article posted re: Office XML was flamebait, pure and simple, as are many of the "m$ sucks" articles posted here day in and day out.

          I suggest you go read the responses to that article - pay attention to those modded down "flamebait". And then find a valid news source.

          Microsoft will extend the base classes to the point of complete uninteroperability as

      • No, you're wrong. Keep dreaming Miguel, you're wasting everyones time with this mono crap. Why don't you do something useful for the planet and get Gnome working properly.

        --- Mono - going nowhere slowly....

    • this has everything to do with patents. W3C would have been an obstacle and they *definitely* want to try to set up a tollbooth for web services.

  • In other news (Score:4, Funny)

    by the_other_one ( 178565 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @10:45AM (#5590834) Homepage

    Microsoft announces new standardized anti trust laws...

  • Microsoft shuts down Mono effort for breach of intellectual property rights.

    Don't say I didn't warn you!

    The only interesting question remaining is whether they'll shut it down before or after Mono becomes a better, stabler, more standards-compliant implementation of .NET than Microsoft's own.

    Daniel
    • This sounds like the reason why there is a .NET at all. As the MS JVM (it is said) is faster and better. So Sun said noway. I also think Mono is wasted time. They should better concentrate on doing their own framework. Which could be as good or better and theirs!
      • now, when microsoft do this, they get blasted.

        why should mono waste their time reinventing the wheel. this oppurtunity should be taken before it turns into another java, which has so much promise and then fell flat on its face.

        • This is kind of a misleading idea, java has not fallen flat on its face. On the desktop it was b0rked by MS, however on the server where MS isn't, java is very common.

          Even where MS is, like at my company, we are moving from IIS and MS java to real java so we implement on any platform.

          The point is that java is alive and well, just not where you see it. Its like linux, in that respect, you don't know its there cause it does its job in the background, not on the desktop.
    • Ah, but the difference here is that they've always said that .NET was platform independent, and they've submitted the CLR et al to Standards bodies to that affect. The abscence of .NET on any other platform is of course not an issue to Microsoft, but it can only benefit them in the long run if Mono does succeed.
      • Hmm... remembering that one of MS's strongest point is their PR work, I fail to see how having a stronger .NET implementation on Linux than on Windows is going to help them...

        Daniel
        • define 'stronger implementation'? Since the standard belongs to Microsoft, all the Mono project is doing is implementing it. Does IBM or Microsoft have a stronger Java Virtual Machine implementation? (okay, don't answer that :p )
          • What I mean is that given Microsoft's history of bugs and security problems, it wouldn't be too surprising to find that the Microsoft implementation is riddled with them, while the Mono implementation, once mature, is faster, works on both windows and unix, has no bugs and doesn't crash.

            And that wouldn't help the M$ PR machine, now, would it? :-P

            Daniel

  • Only a portion of the W3C (Score:5, Informative)

    by n-baxley ( 103975 ) <nate@NosPAm.baxleys.org> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @11:05AM (#5590966) Homepage Journal
    It's important to note, and not really clear in the post, that MS is only pulling out of the so-called choreography group for Web Services. It's still a shame, but not as drastic as if they were pulling out all together or abandoning the working group that defines XHTML or CSS. It's still too bad though.

  • Public Image, Feet to Fire, Etc. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @11:14AM (#5591039) Homepage Journal

    As the article said, it's a real shame that the standards making body loss the contributions of MS, since their emissaries were regarded well by the rest of the members.

    Two things are evident, though.

    One, that MS joins standards bodies as part of a public relations and marketing ploy. They find there is some value in being able to use standards as a way to sell their product (eg, the latest "Office does XML"), but their commitment to adhering to standards and to releasing full specifications of their products, which have become de facto standards, is monotonously disappointing.

    Second, while the anti-trust investigation by the U.S Department of Justice was underway and the outcome was subject to some chance, their behavior was better. Unfortunately, it seems as if they already know or don't fear the outcome of the EU investigation, or they might make a better effort to uphold standards, which are the essential ingredient for a competitive software marketplace.

  • Ms vs. IBM (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Burb ( 620144 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @12:09PM (#5591458)
    Sun issued a statement condemning the move, saying that "IBM and (Microsoft) have now moved away from a leadership position in Web services standards and become a disruptive force in the industry."

    I read this, thought "I bet the slashdotters will denounce Big Bill and leave IBM alone". Was I right?

  • I'm concerned that standards bodies don't focus more on specific problem domains. W3C, Oasis and WS-I seem to overlap or mesh in disturbing ways. It really should be very clear as to which body we look to for specific technologies, ie. markup, rendering, communicaton, etc. The only reason MS and IBM wouldn't stay and fight for influence on the standard is that they don't respect W3C authority on the technology. Competing standards stall growth and create a huge waste of effort where as strong standards

  • We don't need any standards... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ptaff ( 165113 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:03PM (#5591850) Homepage
    Of course standards have no importance...

    WMA, BMP, WAV, RLE, were all formats that absolutely necessary. There was no other way before to store that kind of information.

    C# is also so important! I mean, there was no language before that could be run in a virtual machine.
  • "MS Withdraws from WC3 Web Services Working Group"

    I didn't know that Microsoft had anything against battlenet...

  • Old MS Joke (Score:4, Funny)

    by Schart ( 587279 ) <psiphi.mac@com> on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @01:59PM (#5592288)
    This (and the OpenGL thing and... well, a LOT of things MS does) reminds me of this OLD joke I heard quite a few years ago:

    Q. How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a lightbulb?

    A. None. They simply declare darkness to be the new standard.

    GONNNNG!!
  • MS withdraws from WC3? But I thought Warcraft was doing well!
  • Microsoft probably got tired of working with all the Orcs...
  • I wonder if its not the fact that W3C has done the right thing with the new working draft pretty much banning licensing of patented tech in web standards....:>
  • We dont need standards, just make our own !

    All kidding aside, they do tend do to this, via the weight they can throw around to force users into the new 'standard'.

Slashdot Top Deals

Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.

Close