[iwar] [fc:Tim.Berners-Lee.on.Microsoft's.Latest.Browser.Tricks]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-29 07:28:05


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3591-1004369264-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4818 invoked by uid 510); 29 Oct 2001 15:27:04 -0000
Received: from n28.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.78) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 15:27:04 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3591-1004369264-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.1.223] by n28.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Oct 2001 15:27:45 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Oct 2001 15:27:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 73738 invoked from network); 29 Oct 2001 15:27:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 29 Oct 2001 15:27:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Oct 2001 15:27:44 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9TFS6l14747 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:28:06 -0800
Message-Id: <200110291528.f9TFS6l14747@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Tim.Berners-Lee.on.Microsoft's.Latest.Browser.Tricks]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tim Berners-Lee on Microsoft's Latest Browser Tricks

Posted on Friday, October 26, 2001

Yesterday, Microsoft disabled use of MSN with many non-IE browsers. It was a
clumsy move, and it has plainly backfired.

I asked the World Wide Web Consortium's Tim Berners-Lee for his views on the
situation. Here are my questions and his answers (edited very slightly, such
as putting in hyperlinks):

DG: What is your reaction to Microsoft's decision to disable non-IE browsers
from access to MSN?

TBL: I have fought since the beginning of the Web for its openness: that
anyone can read Web pages with any software running on any hardware. This is
what makes the Web itself. This is the environment into which so many people
have invested so much energy and creativity. When I see any Web site claim
to be only readable using particular hardware or software, I cringe - they
are pining for the bad old days when each piece of information need a
different program to access it.

The "best viewed with" button is bad, but there is worse. Worse are sites
which not only ask you but which force you to use software which they
control, so they will effectively have control over all your browsing --
even when you are browsing someone else's site. You press "search" the Web
and there you are straight back to old site - not just reading it, but
feeding it your personal interests, and being fed back its advertising, and
its answers on where you should buy things, and what your should read for
news and political opinion.

DG: I suggested yesterday that Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot.
After all, MSN's content isn't all that compelling in the first place. Why
should anyone be bothered in that case?

TBL: Though the MSN site itself may not be compelling, it may be the thin
edge of a wedge. Also, the propaganda involved is worrying... the idea that
to install IE is an "up"-grade to whatever else you are using.

DG: Does Microsoft IE 6 meet all W3C standards? Do you believe the company's
explanation for its action? If not, why not?

TBL: It's fair to note that no browser implements all W3C standards
perfectly. That said, there are many which implement them to a high level
which are cut out of the MSN site - most notably our own. We've thought a
lot about what a browser should do, built one, and even made some guidelines
available, which were well received by many developers. Amaya, the browser
which W3C develops as a testbed for our technologies, and which arguably has
the best W3C compliance, is blocked from www.msn.com.
Here are our guidelines for what browsers should do.

If the claim for standards-compliant browsers is to be considered true, then
it would follow that the msn site itself follows W3C standards for either
HTML or XHTML, for CSS (style sheets) and for Web Accessibility. One can
test the compliance of the site by using the W3C Validator Service, at this
site.

Running the msn.com homepage through the validator on Friday showed the site
did not use valid XHTML and did not meet the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines. 

So if the site doesn't use W3C standards, and browsers that provide more
full support for them are blocked out, I would also like to know what the
reason is.

DG: What should the DoJ, FTC, EU and other enforcement agencies be
encouraged to do about this, if anything?

TBL: Who can blame a company for aiming for vertical integration - entire
control of hardware, software, content, and ongoing business? It is a
unbelievably strong position to be in. To be at once the gateway to a user's
view of the Web - and thus essential in the user's life - and also have
control over that "search" button? A huge commercial benefit - and that is
what a company is after.

It is constituted in order to maximize the return for its investors. There
is, I believe, a great power you have over a user when you write software
which interfaces then with the rest of the world. I believe that this power
comes with a responsibility - a responsibility to be an impartial sense
organ for the person, to provide an unbiased view of the world. Normally in
the USA it is the rule of law which constrains a company from doing damage
to society in the search for profits. Tobacco companies continue to create
additions to their products, but their advertising is curtailed by
legislation and the law has allowed individuals to later sue about the
suffering and death which they caused. This would suggest that we should be
looking at legislation to control the independence of the medium which we
rely on and trust for so much.

Telecommunications companies have traditionally been restricted in most
countries from using their control of communication to give them advantage
in other business. We could introduce legislation that the suppliers of
generic software, suppliers of generic communications and generic hardware
should be isolated financially. This would open the individual markets to
fair completion, which is the basis of the market economy in which all these
companies and consumers all thrive. At this point I would strongly support
such legislation.

There was a time when I would have beloved that the ethos of the Internet,
and understanding of the importance as an independent medium, was pervasive
enough to ensure that things would be an acceptably open. However, the
latest events have shown that this is not the case, and legislation is
therefore required before we can have the sort of world in which I want to
live, work, and bring up children.

When it comes to the rules of the road, and the ethos of how manufacturers
of software and content behave, all I can say is: there is quite an upgrade
required.

DG: What has Microsoft learned from its antitrust experiences?

TBL: I can't answer that one.

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:58 PST