From the original MSDN blog post: "Browsers that compromise (by spreading across too many OSes and OS versions) face challenges. For example, building a new browser for the ten-year old version of Windows that came with IE6 didn’t make sense to us because of the limitations of its graphics and security architectures."
Seems like they rewrote IE's engine using newer, lower-level, hardware-accelerated APIs to achieve better performance compared to earlier versions of IE. This is at the expense of dropping compatibility support for older versions of Windows. I think they are also saying, by avoiding the use of cross-platform compatibility layers, they were able to build a faster browser compared to their competitors'.
I think the problem here is that people are confusing HTML (basic syntax) with HTML5 (it's underlining engine and features/abilities).
Microsoft is just saying that since they don't have a cross-compatibility layer to deal with, they can tweak and optimize the rendering engine and the code, since it's using the native Windows API and not some middle layer.
I don't get the problem here. Microsoft is trying to optimize the IE browsing experience for Windows users by taking advantage of hardware/OS functionality. And the issue is ... ?
Windows is designed for "desktop computing", whatever that means. Therefore, if some platform is better just because it is specifically designed "for HTML5" that would be Google Chrome OS, not any "middle level layer" on top of Windows such as IE10...
It means in a browser with a rendering engine made for that one platform, and not made more generically for cross-platform support.
That is the most charitable reading, and how even that reading is supposed to be meaningful is beyond me. Basically, since MS can't demonstrate in any meaningful way that their not-cross-platform engine does anything better, they're offering up "it runs better because it's made for Windows" as a truism.
I don't really understand why everyone is getting so worked up about this. I take it as meaning that MS is going to implement IE10 with as much low level integration to the OS as possible, i.e. it can make efficiencies by not having to support multiple platforms.
This is not the same thing as adding proprietary extensions to HTML5 that people seem to be inferring. Although IE9 doesn't support all of the HTML5 spec, so far as I've seen it hasn't added anything proprietary or invalid according to the spec, I don't see why they would change this for IE10
"I take it as meaning that MS is going to implement IE10 with as much low level integration to the OS as possible, i.e. it can make efficiencies by not having to support multiple platforms."
Then what they need to say, if they can prove it, is something more like "IE is faster than Chrome." If they're doing that at the expense of being single-platform, that's a tradeoff, not a feature to announce.
And if being single-platform doesn't make them faster than Chrome, what does this announcement mean? "Despite making this tradeoff, we are still bested."
Yup I actually agree with you. This whole native argument for me means speed when compared to multi-platform browsers, so if that doesn't turn out to be true, then there isn't much value in saying it (and a bit embarressing for MS).
My main point though was that all this talk has very nothing to MS introdcuing non-standard html5 in IE10, which loads of people seem to be implying.
I think it means that there are less steps between HTML code and instructions. Less layers of abstractions, no crossplatform compromises - straight from HTML to DirectWhatever. I don't understand the controversy, it kinda makes sense to call it native when it is optimized for a single platform. Similarly to running x64 code natively and .net, java or VB6 running non-natively through abstractions.
Didn't they demo it running on ARM? Is running a browser on the various ARM SoCs and the various combination of x86 and GPU really a single platform just because they all run Windows 7?
Yeah it doesnt make much sense to me either, but i think what they mean is they want to make the association that you MUST use Windows and IE10 to run HTML5 apps, which obviously, is ridiculous.
I assume they also want to add "features" onto HTML5 too, in a similar fashion to ActiveX.
Its just the way Microsoft think, they have a very proprietary mindset, IMO.
Because those extensions are typically used to provide functionality that is intended for eventual inclusion in the CSS spec.
One would expect "Microsoft adding features to HTML5" to involve something other than participating in the cooperative advancement of a nice universal standard.
Actually, given the original OS X graphics API inspiration, Canvas 2D is arguably closer to 'native' on Macs (and maybe iOS devices) than any other platform.
Web3D seems likely to be more at home on primarily OpenGL supporting platforms too.
I don't see the fuss, what does html5 really mean anyway, a bunch of stuff that was already in development was put under this umbrella term because it was easier to market.
Microsoft being a company that want to make profits have taken this one step further with running native html5 apps, it might not mean anything to a technical person but it is a good marketing pitch. They are successful because they are good at this kind of stuff and it is why some people still think the IE symbol is the internet.
HTML5 means nothing on its own. It is just fluff, a keyword for marketing people to use to look new, hip and buzzword compliant.
It is like AJAX which refers (incorrectly) to techniques that had been in use for ages before the term was coined, and the many names being given to old techniques for dynamically loading Javascript and/or breaking the same-site barrier in order to make them sound new and fresh (rather than just rediscovered now they are more generally relevant as browser use and capabilities have evolved).
HTML5 and AJAX are terms I used to judge people (yeah, I'm petty like this). If someone mentions HTML5 (without more specific about what they mean) or AJAX I just assume they don't quite know what they are talking about until they have proven otherwise...
I see this as Microsoft trying to make HTML, which is supposed to work "cross-platform", work best/only on Windows. HTML and native are contradictory terms.
In the meanwhile, while all the firefox, chrome, safari and opera users are enjoying a fast and beautiful web, the poor ie6, ie7, and ie8 users enjoy a slow, horrible and painful experience without knowing that there is more besides IE and making developers life and web evolution worse and slower.
Seems like they rewrote IE's engine using newer, lower-level, hardware-accelerated APIs to achieve better performance compared to earlier versions of IE. This is at the expense of dropping compatibility support for older versions of Windows. I think they are also saying, by avoiding the use of cross-platform compatibility layers, they were able to build a faster browser compared to their competitors'.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/04/12/native-html5-f...