3 ms·
The title is misleading. According to the article, this is about building up on SPDY and adding further enhancements there. So contrary to the usual MS NIH syn
by pilif 15y ago
The title is misleading. According to the article, this is about building up on SPDY and adding further enhancements there.
So contrary to the usual MS NIH syndrome, this is about collaboration to find the best possible solution and not about competing with a totally incompatible but 100% MS solution.
- hinathan 15y agoI don't know about you but "building up on SPDY" triggers my memory pretty sharply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
- redthrowaway 15y agoExcept this isn't MS' call. The IETF will evaluate all proposals and cobble the best bits together. The chances of either SPDY or HTTP S+M being adopted verbatim as HTTP2 are slim. Whatever the IETF ends up doing, it'll be a single standard that everyone builds to.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- kristianp 15y agoIt looks like the usual Microsoft 'embrace and extend' strategy.
- pilif 15y agoIt would be if they weren't working with the IETF to have their additions become HTTP 2.0. There's no difference between Google extending SSL, implementing that in their browser and servers and then submitting it to the IETF and Microsoft adding additional features to SPDY and submitting those too for consideration. Only when their changes get turned down, but then still appear in IE in such a way that it only supports the changed SPDY but not the original any more, only then I would have to agree with you. At the moment it doesn't look like that is the case though.
- obtu 15y agoMicrosoft has worked with standards bodies for CIFS, Kerberos and LDAP, the whole pile of web standards (and their .docx thing, but this one is a joke). It doesn't mean you can interoperate with them, because they have introduced involved bugs and matching workarounds, then enshrined them for decades by never breaking compatibility. SPDY can avoid this because it already has diverse implementations in the wild, but if Microsoft acquires credibility for mobile extensions to SPDY, they'll push a half-broken implementation to carriers and gain a competitive advantage on smartphones.
- drhowarddrfine 15y agoAnd ECMAScript which they held back for a year or more and garnering the wrath of Brendan Eich not too long ago.
- rbanffy 15y ago> It would be if they weren't working with the IETF Like they "worked" with ISO on OOXML? Sorry. They have to earn back some trust after what they did there.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThat's good and all, but I still have my doubts. Their attitude stills sound a bit like "yeah, we're building on SPDY, but our implementation is sooo much better...", in a competitive kind of way. But I suppose if they can actually collaborate with Google on this and try to make the best possible implementation together, that will be good for everyone.