Because security really is never a good reason to be skeptical and skepticism, no matter how valid, is just a cloak for hating on Google. I love GMail and lots of Google's products. I even like that this feature will be limited to companies that register with Google. It doesn't change the fact that those partners could be broken into and used to send out malicious emails.

Also, please don't try to insinuate that I'm against the feature. I'm not. I can stop using GMail if I ever want to. I just think everyone should consider their own security and decide how valuable it is to them based on reasonable possibilities.

Yeah. There are so many positive possibilities yet a large group of people still choose to focus on the negative side. I hope this can change one day

So many possibilities? There is nothing here that couldn't be achieved by having the user click on a link.

And he's right, it does make phishing easier.

> So many possibilities? There is nothing here that couldn't be achieved by having the user click on a link.

Because its machine parseable, it makes a lot of presentation options available that aren't available when you rely on a standard hyperlink without a data format with a standardized identification of the requested action.

> And he's right, it does make phishing easier.

Well, that depends on what the requirements are to have the client present the actions from the schemas: the current Google requirements, I would say, do not make phishing easier. You must register with Google for the schemas in the email you send to be recognized in Google products (e.g., Gmail) [1], and the registration is per-set-of-emails, and fairly specific as to the content, and appears to be manually reviewed [2].

[1] https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/registering-with... [2] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PA-vjjk3yJF7MLPOVKbIz3MBfhy...

>Because its machine parseable, it makes a lot of presentation options available that aren't available when you rely on a standard hyperlink without a data format with a standardized identification of the requested action.

You're right: this addition turns email into a data or event queue of sorts with standardized actions that can be performed on it. I like it. Given that email is one of the few non vendor-locked communication technologies we have and we already have a lot of infrastructure to deliver it reliably, this seems a promising evolution path.

I'd like to see something similar for IM: currently SMS is the only open standard for instant messaging, and any other option locks you into either a platform or a specific client, which the other person will probably not use.

> currently SMS is the only open standard for instant messaging

XMPP is an open standard (through IETF RFCs and related standards) for messaging and presence whose motivating use case was instant messaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP

Right. My comment is more on the adoption rather than availability of open standards.

XMPP is also used, behind the scenes, with Google Chat and Facebook Chat. It has a fair amount of adoption; you just don't really hear about it much.

Just like short sellers, we need these naysayers to keep us grounded. :) Yes, I choose to see the positive possibilities and the opportunities that show up thanks to our beloved naysayers.

No. It's more that there are so many positive possibilities yet a large group of people still choose to exploit them to make themselves money by harming others and end up breaking things for everyone else.

The whole history of modern operating systems and the Web is the example of that. Think of all the amazing and useful things that could be (and have been) done had there was no Data Execution Prevention or Same-Origin Policy or any other limit introduced because of security.

> This thread is hilarious. Keep your heads in the sand.

Does everyone need to get excited for features that existed in Outlook ca. 2000 A.D. just because they are wrapped in a shiny Web 2.0 veneer?

It did? Using an open format? I've never heard of that. Do you know the name of the feature?

> It did? Using an open format?

As much as Web 2.0 enthusiasts loathe the fact, Microsoft actually invented XMLHTTPRequest. See http://stackoverflow.com/a/12067786/112125

What does that have to do with anything? Netscape invented Javascript. Oh look another random point that seems to provide nothing to the conversation.

I think it's pretty well aware Microsoft (or should I say a select few working on IE at Microsoft) invented "AJAX"

You keep harping on the "open format". So what? That doesn't change any of the talking points here.

Being an open format that can be implemented by any other mail client is, in my opinion, an important part of the feature, especially for those of us who don't use Gmail.

They might allow for tar files in the subject and come to think of it, ogg files as well...

So what?

I don't think so, it seems an obvious concern to me.