HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:58:01 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.6 (Fedora) Last-Modified: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 03:31:05 GMT ETag: "73cba-8cb-c5293040" Accept-Ranges: bytes Content-Length: 2251 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Client-side binary extensions ("components")

Reasons PRO

Complete freedom of client-side programming language.
Complete freedom of client-server protocol (back door).

Reasons CON

Binary extensions are platform-dependent.
User must install, configure each extension.
Begs question of standardizing client-server protocol for interactivity.
Large security questions vs. other extensions mechanisms, since binary API hard to control.

Applications

3D viewers, scientific data visualizers, and similar extensions requiring high performance on client side.

Proposed Solutions

W3A: WWW Applets API - Bert Bos
WWWinda (TCL-based Linda-like coordination among applets) - Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund et al.
MM-WWW-PC (based on Asymetrix Toolbook for MS Windows) - Paolo Tosolini
CCI++ (apparently proprietary) - Michael Doyle (Eolas)
- Eolas has applied for a preposterous patent claim on embedded Web applets
- See flood of counterevidence from the Net
Presumably, Microsoft VBX's, OCX's.

Updated: Fri Sep 1 1995
Up to Client extensibility.
Home to Interactive Standards Home Page.

HyperNews Responses

1. Look at WebRunner (James Kittock) 1. Thanks, I added it here... (Paul Burchard)
2. Isn't This Similar To Helper Applications? (Guido van Rossum) 1. Yes, main difference is embeddability (Paul Burchard)