Yearly Archives: 2005

The Semantics of "Reload"

Posted on by

When I click the Reload button in my browser, an HTTP request is issued that is substantitally the same as the one which created the page in the first place (well, not entirely in the case of POSTs). It strikes me that with AJAX applications that this functionality is somewhat outdated. With an AJAX application, I might want to just update part of the page.

For example, on StyleFeeder, if you’re looking at the homepage, you may just want to refresh the “Latest Added Items” data and the tag cloud. Reloading the entire page might be useful to some people, so I don’t think that we can totally dispense with the Reload button.

On the my.yahoo.com portal, I have a bunch of portlets from various news outlets, weather, and stock quotes. When I want to see updated content, I shouldn’t have to reload the entire page. I should have a button that does a “Refresh” of the content and pulls in updated news stories, quotes and weather forecasts in an AJAX style. I’m almost wondering if we need a “Refresh” button.

The UI of the web browser has remained substantially the same since I first started using Mosaic back in 1993:

  • Stop
  • Back
  • Reload
  • Forward
  • Address bar
  • Display area

Of these, it strikes me that the “Reload” button is the only one that is really starting to suffer based on new architectures. Of course, the Back button has been troublesome from the start, so we can’t ignore that.

However, I cannot imagine having to explain to users the difference between “Reload” and “Refresh”. It strikes me that having some kind of an API for the browser to hook into the “Reload” button on your browser toolbar to override the functionality to perform partial page refreshes might be useful, but that will open up a Pandora’s box in itself.

In any event, this is one of the first times in recent memory that I can think of a non-plugin technology that has caused an architectural crack to appear in the otherwise solid UI features of the modern web browser.

RSS, SSE and CC

Posted on by

Preface: I’m asking a question, not making a claim in this post. Please read this accordingly.

This new SSE extension that Microsoft recently pushed out is very odd in one respect that I don’t understand. Some have voiced satisfaction that this RSS/OPML extension has been released under a Creative Commons license.

My reading of the license is that while the specification has been released under the license, your ability to implement the specification and write software based on it is not clarified by the use of CC. The license says that you can:

… copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Is that my license to implement SSE?

Regarding the license, Microsoft says:

As to software implementations, Microsoft is not aware of any patent claims it owns or controls that would be necessarily infringed by a software implementation that conforms to the specification’s extensions.

It’s this part that matters, not the fact that it’s CC licensed. In fact, I don’t see any big benefit from licensing this using CC… do I want to be able to make derivative licenses? While I don’t think that it is harmful for people to do this, it strikes me that the emphasis has been placed on something that doesn’t really matter. The part that matters is the bit where Microsoft says what you can do with implementations based on the license, which is that they will offer a:

… royalty-free patent license on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms…

Hmm. Reasonable. Non-discriminatory. Hmm. Vague.

RSS 2.0 is in the same boat based on this interpretation:

RSS 2.0 is offered by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School under the terms of the Attribution/Share Alike Creative Commons license.

I just don’t know what that means in terms of my ability to implement RSS 2.0. It seems clear that I could create Phil’s Simple Summary format and base it on RSS 2.0, however.

For comparison, RSS 1.0 specifies this in the “Rights” part of the spec:

This copyright applies to the RDF Site Summary 1.0 Specification and accompanying documentation and does not extend to the RSS format itself.

That is clear: the license applies to the documentation, not anybody’s right to implement it.

Please set me straight:

When I write a spec for a format or API and release the documentation under a CC license, does it have any implications for someone’s ability to implement that format or API?

Update

: Contrast this non-clarity with the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications intellectual property information. That explicitly spells out the fact that you can make royalty-free implementations of the specification and that Sun and OASIS won’t enforce any of their applicable patents that may affect implementations.

GmailUI: Making Desktop Applications Behave like Websites

Posted on by

Stefano recently pointed me to a Thunderbird plugin called GmailUI that adds a few cutesy keystroke features to Thunderbird. It’s quite useful, especially the archive feature. The only thing that I don’t like is that I now have to press ctrl-j to mark a message as junkmail and move it to my junk folder. But it’s a net improvement regardless of this.

This is the first time that I’ve purposely modified a desktop application behave more like a website.

Watching Rodney Mullen on Google Video

Posted on by

Rodney Mullen

I skateboarded pretty seriously for about 7 years when I was in high school and college and had a lot of fun doing it. One of the most insanely creative and mind-blowing skaters on the scene back then was a guy named Rodney Mullen. I think he had a 13-year streak of 1st place finishes in every contest that he entered.

I have to assume that most of you aren’t familiar with this guy, but watching him skate is like watching Michael Jordan. He’s just so impressive. Last night, I started typing his name into Google’s video search and sat in amazement watching him.

Check it out.