Participating at W3C’s TPAC 2009
This week the W3C holds its annual Technical Plenary and Advisory Committee meeting (TPAC 2009). There will be about a dozen people from the IE team participating and this is a valuable opportunity to continue working together with other W3C members on the next generation of web standards. High quality specifications that improve interoperability between browsers are important. Our goal is to help ensure these new standards work well for web developers and will work well in future versions of IE.
We will participate in a number of browser related working group meetings including accessibility, CSS and HTML sessions. For many groups, this is the only face to face time participants will get and so this is a perfect time to put faces to email addresses. Held in Santa Clara, California this year, the close proximity to many of the companies involved in the W3C means a large number of attendees is expected.
Over the last few months, some of us in the IE team have been working through the HTML5 working draft reviewing the specification text. It is interesting to exchange ideas and help the specification become clearer and I am looking forward to seeing many of the people involved again. There has been a long discussion about the submission we made to the HTML working group about distributed extensibility. Tony Ross, the author of our discussion document, will be participating in a panel on extensibility with Jonas Sicking from Mozilla on Wednesday.
Eliot Graff, a lead technical editor for IE, who is helping edit an updated draft of the Canvas API document that Doug Schepers started will also be at the HTML working group meeting this week.
Kris Krueger, one of our lead test managers, has volunteered to help the newly formed Testing Task Force within the HTML working group. Having a comprehensive test suite that thoroughly tests a specification is a key step to ensuring implementations interoperate successfully. Kris will be taking part in the HTML working group meeting on Thursday and Friday.
Paul Cotton, who was recently appointed as a co-chair of the HTML working group as Chris Wilson changed his focus to programmability in the web platform, will also be with us at the TPAC to help the overall work.
On Thursday, the W3C has organised a Developer Gathering for web and application developers who don’t normally participate in the W3C to join discussions about web standards. In my experience the participation of web developers is extremely important to check the overall ease of use of the specifications and APIs being proposed as standards. One of our program managers, Sylvain Galineau, will be amongst the CSS Strike Force presenting CSS demos.
I don’t have room in this short blog post to mention everyone who will be involved this week but I’ve tried to give a flavour for the work that we will be participating in. Above all, it’s fun to hang out with people you mostly see only by email so there will be lots of hallway conversations and debates over lunch or dinner. I can’t wait.
Adrian Bateman
Program Manager
Comments
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
This time around next year IE's market share will be under 50%. Why do think that's is happening? IE reminds me of American cars, you know how that story goes.Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I really want to hear the real progress about IEAnonymous
January 01, 2003
This is a test for posting comment with PIMShellAnonymous
November 02, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 02, 2009
Justin-- W3C summits are all about standards. Other browsers are members as well.Anonymous
November 02, 2009
The dream of any webdesigner: one browser ;)Anonymous
November 02, 2009
Not necessarily one browser, but a solid standard. Microsoft needs to conform to these standards, even Apple's Safari does.Anonymous
November 02, 2009
Thanks for letting us know you folks are around and tinkering away. While new standard support would be great existing standards that aren't yet supported yet are beyond needed it years ago such as XHTML. Web 3.0 is about the web transitioning to the role of applications and for that to happen they need to act like applications and fail like applications. This is the only major thing I can't implement a reliable work around (e.g. application/xml / W3C bot issue) in IE. Any way I hope the meeting is productive and that we hear more from you folks at least on occasion between now and the first IE9 beta. :-)Anonymous
November 02, 2009
One browser, but a solid standard. That's what we want when we work.Anonymous
November 02, 2009
Lets hope things can move forward quickly!Anonymous
November 02, 2009
Registration closed 10/29. See http://www.w3.org/2009/11/TPAC/DevMeeting.html#Participation A timely blog post may have generated more interest. Regards.Anonymous
November 02, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 02, 2009
Distributed Extensibility is not going to help with a common standard. It looks like it will just be abused to create a special .NET compatible IE-only websites. I think we have all had more than enough or browser-specific code to last a lifetime. I think I speak for most developers when I say you should concentrate on existing standards before creating your own.Anonymous
November 02, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 02, 2009
Based on this post - does this mean that there is a glimmer of hope that CANVAS will be supported natively in IE{Next} (presuming IE9) It isn't quite the SVG support we've wanted - but I would gladly take any support of an open vector graphic standard in IE.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
would be nice to see true canvas support to play games like hullbreach online but i doubt that will happen & that google code project is a joke since its only for implementing it on the server side not the client sideAnonymous
November 03, 2009
I am looking forward to the Microsoft team fully embracing the HTML5 development debate. It will be interesting to see if you step in and merely support existing HTML5 definitions (new elements, attributes, CSS3, SVG/Canvas, Web Workers, GeoLocation and Local Storage) or take a lead in other technologies such as MathML. How will you handle VIDEO support of H.264/Theora and CANVAS competing against your own technologies?Anonymous
November 03, 2009
@jon "the WHATWG puts out, which is controlled by Google's Ian Hickson" Wrong http://www.whatwg.org/charterAnonymous
November 03, 2009
@orlando : you're wrong : "Queries should be directed either to the mailing list or to Ian Hickson, who is acting as a spokesman for the group". But there's also the other clown (DH), the one from apple. I hope Microsoft will continue the development of XHTML 2.0 which is much more promising then HTML5.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
@olivier there is a charter who have the authority to override or replace Hickson decisions. XHTML 2.0 is almost dead: http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.htmlAnonymous
November 03, 2009
@billybob: "Decentralized extensibility" has nothing to do with ".net". See section #5 of http://www.w3.org/2009/06/xhtml-faq.html for discussion.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
Is there a chance to get a public preview build of your current work? Talking about standards is good, but seeing where you go is much better.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
All we ask is that when you implement the various methods and properties in the Canvas API that you implement them EXACTLY as they are specified. If a method takes a string ID, you will match only on a string ID - no funky magic matching parameters etc. There also should be no dependency on ActiveX or similar as I'm not turning that back on to achieve a usable 2D graphics API in IE. Yeah... we are passionate about this.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
Thanks for supporting open industry standards, as these critical for continued web, IE & cloud efforts.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
@Erik - AFAIR Something similar to "Distributed Extensibility" IN HTML was used by Word and possibly .NET libraries. XML is supposed to be extensible, HTML is not. The difference is that HTML is used for display whereas XML is used for data. In XML it does not matter if there is a tag called x:br, but only Microsoft will know exactly how to render it. If Distributed Extensibility was added to HTML5 then Microsoft could use it to add undocumented, proprietary features to the web (again). My guess is that the 2 biggest spreaders of this disease will be Office and .NET libraries for the clueless.Anonymous
November 03, 2009
"billybob": After someone has pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about, the smart thing to do is to either apologize, or just stop typing.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
@jon and @Adrian Bateman Please read carefully the HTML 5 specification (): "2.2.2 Extensibility Vendor-specific proprietary extensions to this specification are strongly discouraged. Documents must not use such extensions, as doing so reduces interoperability and fragments the user base, allowing only users of specific user agents to access the content in question." If vendor-specific markup extensions are needed, they should be done using XML" (emphasis mine) Thank you () http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#extensibilityAnonymous
November 04, 2009
@orlando "there is a charter who have the authority to override or replace Hickson decisions." Have you read the charter? Nobody has the authority to override the editor. I refer you in particular to the following: "Each document shall have an assigned editor. Editors should reflect the consensus opinion of the working group when writing their specifications, but it is the document editor's responsibility to break deadlocks when the working group cannot come to an agreement on an issue." So, Hickson must reflect the consensus of the group opinion of the workgroup, but he has the final say on anything there isn't 100% agreement about. And since Hickson himself is a member of the workgroup, anything he doesn't agree with does not have a consensus, and he has the authority to break the "deadlock" by doing whatever he wants. @Olivier David Hyatt is not an editor of the WHATWG spec, only the W3C one, which tracks the WHATWG one anyway, making his position somewhat pointless.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
@Jon: "Is the W3C even relevant to HTML 5 though?" I think the W3C is very relevant. It continues to be a place with a strong web community discussing a variety of related standards, not just the HTML5 spec. The W3C HTML working group mailing list is very active: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/Anonymous
November 04, 2009
@billybob: "I think we have all had more than enough or browser-specific code to last a lifetime." Do you think that JavaScript libraries should be allowed that enable HTML annotations to provide a declarative syntax for wiring up library controls? For example, a calendar control or the ability to do data-binding without writing code? This is one of the scenarios that we think is important.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
@adrianba Not unless the specs for those control syntaxes and annotations were formally submitted to the W3C without the requirement of a browser-specific environment. If this technology really is good, then other browser developers ought to be able to implement it as well. I don't see you folks implementing XForms or the new HTML5 form elements any time soon, so I don't think I'm wrong to be sceptical about this effort.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
"Retro", you are completely missing the point. If the generic extension syntax is part of the standard (and it should be) then JavaScript itself could take advantage of it to simplify functionality, and that functionality would be cross-browser compatible. JQuery and other libraries work sorta like this today, and it's generally agreed that this is a very valuable thing.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
Please insist on complexity levels in the new HTML/web standard. This already is done with modern video formats (h264) so that one can produce a device that supports standard X complexity level 4. This is one of the largest problems when developing web pages for the mobile device market. The client browser device should be able to tell the server what html standard it supports and what complexity level within that standard it supports. This gets developers, tool vendors, etc. out of the market of coding for specific browsers and specific versions of those browsers.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
One browser but a very solid standard. That is what we want al if we work.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
@Retro: "If this technology really is good, then other browser developers ought to be able to implement it as well." Are you suggesting that before you personally are allowed to write JavaScript that enumerates custom attributes on just your web site that you need to write up a spec and submit it to a standards body so other people could also do the same thing? That doesn't seem very scalable. As Ben says, I think a generic extensibility mechanism that supports this in a conforming way is valuable.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
@Ben It's not just about the extensibility spec itself - it's about the extensions too. Distributed extensibility is only useful if the people who develop extensions produce public, open specs that are detailed enough for everyone else to implement so that it works as effectively and correctly as the reference implementation. Also, these extension specs ought to be available to be reviewed by people who did not initially create them. It might just be me, but I don't think that Microsoft will be very keen on letting people outside MS review and propose changes to their extensions, and I'm not holding out much hope either that they'll let people implement their native widgets and bindings using open technologies either unless they go down the same sort of route that Mono is going down.Anonymous
November 04, 2009
Off topic - but highly relevant: With Windows 7 being officially released recently a whole new supported platform enters the mix for Web Developers. We realize that Windows 7 doesn't look like Windows XP etc. however there are many questions about how different IE8 renders/interacts with web content compared to IE8 on XP (or Vista). I don't currently have budget to go out and buy a brand new PC with Windows 7 in order to test my pages at the moment but I certainly do want to know how it compares. Question 1.) Are there any VPC images of Win7 that we can get access to for testing? Question 2.) Are there any known differences that we should be aware of as developers? I realize that the userAgent string will be slightly different, but beyond that? E.g. are there any enhanced printing features/changes? Bookmarking restrictions/improvements? I also realize that chrome features may have changed... "typical" scrollbars in XP were 17px wide, ditto with Vista... has this changed in Win7? Thanks!Anonymous
November 05, 2009
I don't think it matters how much MSFT and IE fanboys bark about security with Google Frame. All end users and the web development community is going to focus on is 3 things: 1.) IE8 runs 10x faster with Google Chrome Frame plugin installed: http://news.techworld.com/networking/3202572/internet-explorer-8-runs-ten-times-faster-with-google-chrome-plug-in/ 2.) HTML5 items beyond the default IE8 items now supported 3.) IE6 rendering pains are out the window! 10x faster! Just goes to show you how slow IE8 really is!Anonymous
November 05, 2009
Be sure to teach those other losers a thing or two about security. The Internet would be a much safer place if they'd get their heads together and follow your lead. C'mon, if you can't trust the largest software company in the world to provide secure products, then who can you trust? Take control and help get those other browsers up to speed.Anonymous
November 05, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 05, 2009
@martin : most people here are probably webdevelopers, so what's the point in using the Chrome Frame ? We want to render webpages like IE8, if we want tot try the Chrome rendering, we'll use Chrome. And you forget the main "feature" of the Chrome Frame : 10x more security flaws, great !Anonymous
November 05, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 05, 2009
I think Google made a great mistake by making Chrome Frame simply because Chrome Frame makes IE the new Google Chrome, there is just no point having Google Chrome around anymore. In case anyone asks, I already told them (I can't remember how).Anonymous
November 05, 2009
IE8 developer tools bug - please fix: a) load IE8 b) navigate to a web page c) hit F12 to load dev tools d) dev tools window does not show up e) right click on dev tools taskbar button select maximize -- dev tools window shows up The dev tools window does not handle negative upper left hand corners of a 2 monitor display It is set to OFF OF THE SCREEN and NOT VISIBLE if you have 2 monitors with the 2nd monitor on the left and the 1st monitor on the right. Cascade, tile winodws, etc does not help. You can test the coordinate scheme by loading a cmd.exe window and selecting properties from the context menu. Move the dos window on each monitor and test this. It has -1279 for my 1280x1152 display.Anonymous
November 05, 2009
what would be nice is to see if they improve ie6on6Anonymous
November 05, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 05, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 06, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 06, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 06, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 06, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 06, 2009
The comment has been removedAnonymous
November 12, 2009
I'd like to make a feature reqest (or anoying bug report). The print preview window for IE8 is better than IE6, but there are significant usability issues with it. The biggest is that I can't use the scroll wheel to scroll pages like I can in any other printpreview control for any other application out there. Its majorly frustrating. The [Page Up] / [Page Down] and [Arrow Up] / [Arrow Down] keys don't work either - total usability nightmare.Anonymous
November 15, 2009
You mention the Canvas API in the original post. Is this just name dropping to make it sound like IE is playing the standards game or can we actually expect to look forward to seeing native Canvas in IE in the near (3yr) future?