W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > September 2003

Re: alternatives and migration scenarios

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:28:13 +1000
Cc: W3C Public Web Plugins List <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
To: priority_one@amberdigital.com
Message-Id: <B94E5C62-DEB1-11D7-9951-000393B3CA5E@w3.org>

I just answer the SVG questions below.

On Thursday, Sep 4, 2003 Michael Condouris wrote:

>
> Ok, I'm a flash developer and while I realize it's still early in this
> mess, I want to start thinking about migrations to alternate
> technologies.  Here's my thoughts on the matter, I'd love to see some
> input.
>
> This assumes a worst-case scenario, wherein microsoft issues a "fix"
> which breaks all pages containing plugins.
>
> 1.  Where flash is essentially the sole entity on a page (interactive
> material / full flash sites), I'm assuming some workaround will 
> probably
> become available that allows the user to launch the flash player.  
> Fine.
>
> 2.  Where flash is used as navigation, I generally offer an alternative
> text menu already so this should be a no-brainer.
>
> 3.  Where flash is used as decor, I would move to either animated gifs
> (yech), static images, or perhaps SVG.

It depends how you call the SVG. If you are using an SVG plugin
then as far as I know you are in the same boat as Flash plugins,
Quicktime plugins, etc.

You could embed the SVG inline within the HTML, which was a use-case
identified early in the design of SVG. Unfortunately, there isn't much
adoption yet in the browser space (you can get Mozilla builds).

>
> Which leads me to some questions.  If whoever's doing the FAQ is
> reading, well, I don't know how frequent these are, but here goes.
>
> 1.  Is SVG implementable in a way which circumvents this patent?

This patent claims to cover plugins, so it probably doesn't matter
what format you use. However, you could probably implement SVG support
in a browser and avoid the patent claims, by embedding the
content inline. To be honest though, I haven't read the patent
in detail and I'm not a lawyer.

>  I know
> it *CAN* be implemented where the data is directly in the HTML 
> document,
> but I wonder if using a compressed mode would leave it liable.

I think the compression is irrelevant. SVG mandates support for
gzip compression, which would provide the same results as HTTP 
compression.

I pass on the rest of the questions :)

Dean

>
> 2.  What about links to which open a separate application?  (i.e.,
> opening an mp3 in winamp from browser)
>
> 3.  Would an implementation of flash, which included the binary within
> the HTML code, circumvent the patent?  Basically this would be like an
> email attachment but designed to play in some part of the screen.
>
> 4.  What timeline, if any, has been established for the appeals process
> and the IE changes?
>
> 5.  What, if any, liability does a developer have, taking on new 
> clients
> with the knowledge of this decision?  It seems to be under the press'
> radar for the time being, but eventually I fear legal departments are
> going to start telling production departments to halt multimedia
> production until a decision is reached.  I'd hate to see that happen.
>
> Anyway, I'd love to see some thoughts on these topics.
>
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Michael Condouris
> http://www.amberdigital.com
> Telephone: 973-857-7707
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 04:28:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:03 UTC