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

RE: a what if...

From: Michael Condouris <priority_one@amberdigital.com>
Date: 05 Sep 2003 04:19:40 -0400
To: W3C Public Web Plugins List <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1062749980.31336.14.camel@jughead>

I think maybe recompile is misleading, if we're talking about internet
explorer.  (presumably they, being who they are, will prefer to leave
their source closed) But what about something more like a binary patch? 
The gist of the patent, if I'm reading it right, is that the tag links
the browser to a plugin designation, allowing a certain amount of
arbitariness - if next week someone comes up with a smell-o-vision, IE
will accomodate that through activeX, as long as the smell-o-vision
authors used the activeX api. What I'm suggesting they might do is
remove that arbitrariness.  Flash would play not because it was some
plugin, but because playing swf files would be part of IE's core
functionality.  The recipients of the royal screwing in this scenario
would be future plugin creators, as any extendability would require
official merging into the Master Control Program.

It's a little childish and stupid, but then, so are software patents.

On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 19:10, 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 Friday, 5 September 2003 04:03:16 UTC

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