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

RE: a what if...

From: Aral Balkan <aral@bitsandpixels.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:10:37 -0000
To: <priority_one@amberdigital.com>
Cc: "W3C Public Web Plugins List" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAEEJAKMKDKMJCEFABPFGECAEJAA.aral@bitsandpixels.co.uk>

> What if Microsoft's change to IE is to actually patch commonly used
> plugins directly into the browser's binary?  Would this circumvent the
> patent by eliminating the call to an external executable?

Very cool: Sounds like an "extension" to me, instead of a plug-in.

> If so, other browsers would have to follow suit if they were persued.
> It would certainly put the kibosh on new plugin creation, but give them
> a better negotiating position.

Hmm, not if the browser was built with an extendable/open framework. It
could then be recompiled with a new extension built using that framework and
abiding by the open API.

Ok, building on this, since XHTML is XML, why not expose these patched
"extensions" (have they patented extensions?) via a new tag

eg. <extension name="Flash"><!-- custom tags? --></extension>

or, the extension could even add its own tag definitions:

eg. <flash version="7.0" flashvars="a=5&b=4"><!-- child tags? --></flash>

Thoughts?

Aral

--
Aral Balkan
Managing Director, Bits And Pixels, Ltd.
http://www.BitsAndPixels.co.uk
Director of Educational Content, Ultrashock.com
Co-author, Flash 3D Cheats, (FoED)
Co-author, Flash MX Most Wanted Components (FoED)
Co-director, London Macromedia User Group
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 18:17:01 UTC

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