- From: Aral Balkan <aral@bitsandpixels.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 04:52:43 -0000
- To: "Jake Robb" <jakerobb@mac.com>
- Cc: "W3C Public Web Plugins List" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
> 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. To highlight my previous post (emphasis added): > > Hmm, not if the browser was built with an extendable/open framework. It [the browser] > > could then be *recompiled* with a new extension built using that > framework and > > abiding by the open API. Would it really be covered by the patent if the extension was *compiled/patched* into the browser? i.e., the browser was recompiled to include the patch? e.g., sample workflow: 1. I go on a site that uses Flash 14.0. 2. I am informed that my browser does not support Flash 14.0 and given a link to download the extension. 3. After downloading the extension, IE automatically *recompiles* its executable, including the Flash 14.0 patch/extension 4. IE restarts itself, now with the extension as part of its binary and displays the page Aral --- 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 23:59:03 UTC