Re: a what if...

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
>

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 21:56:16 UTC