RE: a what if...

With respect to Microsoft and the term "extensions", this generally refers
to "additional specifications" to a public programming standard. 

For example, MSIE supports an HTML tag call "<XML/>" that has all sorts of
groovy functionality, but it is not part of the public standard for HTML
supported by the W3C.

Another simple example of an extension is the SCROLL="on|off" attribute for
the HTML <BODY/> tag.

How Microsoft actually implements the workings of these "extensions" in MSIE
is another matter, but plugs-in are not typically involved. 

Hope this helps.


---
This is my question as well, are internal "built-in" features of MSIE
affected by this Patent?

When is more information going to come down the pipe anyway?

Scott Cadillac,
XML-Extranet - http://xmlx.ca
403-281-6090 - scott@xmlx.ca
Well-formed Development
--
Extranet solutions using C# .NET, Witango, MSIE and XML


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jake Robb
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 7:56 PM
> To: W3C Public Web Plugins List
> Subject: 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 23:10:07 UTC