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

Re: a what if...

From: Michael Condouris <priority_one@amberdigital.com>
Date: 04 Sep 2003 23:10:02 -0400
To: Jake Robb <jakerobb@mac.com>
Cc: W3C Public Web Plugins List <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1062731402.30749.21.camel@jughead>

That's more of what I meant, initially.  Updates to the un-plugins would
be in the form of patches to the executable.  If, for instance, the
libflashplayer.so was instead actually compiled into mozilla-bin.  The
tag itself would then be "dumb" as far as the executing program is
concerned.  It'd just say <flash src="egregious_patent_abuse.swf" /> and
that'd be the end of it; the browser would have to then have the
responsibility of actually reading that format.  Not nearly as elegant
as a plugin architecture, but it'd at least keep existing pages from
breaking.

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 21:56, Jake Robb wrote:
> Um, I'm pretty sure that "extensions" are the same as "plugins".  Code in a
> different file, loaded at runtime, and run at the request of a hypermedia
> document.  Covered by the patent, I think.
> 
> The suggestion, I believe, was to actually inline Flash, QuickTime, Java,
> and any other major plugins right into the browser's code.  Then the code
> isn't external, and so it's not covered under the patent.
> 
> -Jake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aral Balkan wrote:
> 
> > 
> >> 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
> > 
-- 
Michael Condouris
http://www.amberdigital.com
Telephone: 973-857-7707
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 22:52:46 UTC

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