W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > September 2003

Re: a what if...

From: Jake Robb <jakerobb@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 00:09:55 -0400
To: W3C Public Web Plugins List <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB7D84D3.E742%jakerobb@mac.com>

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to open up a few thousand more security
holes in IE.

That aside, it could work.  Windows will have to start shipping with a
compiler installed by default... it's about time!


Aral Balkan 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.
> 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 Friday, 5 September 2003 00:10:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:09:06 UTC