Extensible browsers

Len Bullard cbullard at hiwaay.net
Thu Jan 20 19:13:14 GMT 2000

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Any takers?

Note Simon, that what appears to be a browser war discussion 
is underneath a discussion of issues that are serious to the 
content developers, (skipping the openSourceIsHoly, anyoneButMS

1.  Features
2.  Reliability
3.  Universal vs targeted access 

The point is that the technology deployed must satisfy 
the contractual requirements within the costs.  Right now, 
and maybe only for awhile, the surest way to do that is to 
restrict the codebase to provably reliable code.  If I 
want RealMedia rm, I use RealPlayer7.  If I want MP3, I 
have a choice given the vendors paid for the patent license. 

HTML is drop dead easy and so far, we still have a lot 
of reliability problems.  The emerging web applications 
for entertainment content have much more severe problems 
and we cannot rely on the HTML monolith to support them. 
So while I think you are in the right area talking about 
extensible browsers, it may be better to reconsider what 
the design of the webbrowser is in general terms as 
services, then to consider if you need the web browser 
cum HTML display engine as the container or just another 
content service type.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at ic.ac.uk the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email at your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list