W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] (no subject)

From: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 16:22:18 -0800
Message-ID: <0I9P00JDZT127P@mailsea.sea.adobe.com>

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:43:38 +0200
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:43:38 +0200 Henri Sivonen wrote:

> Macromedia Flash is a special case. 
> The Adobe Reader PDF plug-in is not a good example of the willingness of
the users to install plug-ins, either. 

Henri, I am simply trying to counter the argument that somehow HTC-based
extensions are so much more useful than plug-ins for IE as to warrant making
HTML language extension decisions based on the distinction of legacy
implementation options. I am well aware that it is difficult to get users to
install browser plug-ins. I was only trying to point out that technical
viability of 3rd-party browser plug-ins has been demonstrated and that there
are existence proofs of widespread adoption (special cases though they may
be). 3rd-party browser HTCs to my knowledge have demonstrated neither
large-scale technical viability (to the contrary, numerous issues and
instabilities have been reported, to the point of being declared not ready
for prime-time) nor widespread adoption (and with increased security
concerns, and Microsoft's shift to a new Internet security model for
XAML/.NET, the outlook for document-based extensions to IE is likely to get

--Bill McCoy
Adobe Systems Incorporated
bmccoy at adobe.com
Received on Sunday, 2 January 2005 16:22:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC