- 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>
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