On 07 Dec 2001 09:19:43 -0500, "Jonadab the Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hill) writes: > >> I can understand the platform argument, even though I might not agree >> with it. ActiveX does depend on Windows APIs, but so does my >> plugin. > >The plugin interface, however, does not. Major plugins (mainly, Java) >are available for the various major platforms. Are you suggesting >that popular ActiveX controls could be made available for multiple >platforms? The plugin interface is only loosely platform dependent, but it still requires the developer to actually do the port. I was making the distinction between the possibility of porting and actually porting. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not advocating ActiveX as a replacement for plugins. It would be a path for developers who weren't going to port anyway. >> I don't think ActiveX would be promoted as the best way to write >> plugins, I see it as a Windows specific technology that some >> developers might be more willing to support. To the developer it >> might make the difference between supporting mozilla or not (they >> have no intention of making a plugin). As a Windows user, if there >> is something I wanted and it came down to a choice between an >> ActiveX control vs nothing I'd take the ActiveX control. > >If I could manually install an individual ActiveX control and use it >without opening myself to other ActiveX controls, I might be more >inclined to view it this way, but as near as I can tell no browser >that supports ActiveX handles it this way, or at least it is not >obvious to the user, when setting the preferences, how to disable >ActiveX controls except for certain key ones that the user has >manually downloaded. The way it seems to work in IE5.5 is, if your >security settings are sufficiently lax to allow it, any website you >visit that uses an ActiveX control gets it installed automatically. >At least, that's how it appears to work as near as I can determine. I >suppose it would not have to work that way; in theory, Mozilla could >treat ActiveX the way it treats plugins. That still leaves the >platform argument, however. Yes, I was thinking that ActiveX controls should be handled the same way plugins are. BTW, I believe if I wanted to get fancy and sign my plugin, jump through lots of hoops and spend money on certificates I could make my plugin install with a confirmation dialog using XPInstall (or SmartUpdate on NS 4.x). Then there would be no manual installation required. I don't know a great deal about the MS security system. I'm sure if you turn the security settings low enough you can get yourself in trouble. I doubt that the default settings were designed to permit any ActiveX control to download and run without at least a confirmation dialog. But IE would not be the model for how ActiveX controls should work, especially the installation and subsequent managment of which controls are allowed. AFAIK there is no UI in IE to specify which controls can run once installed. I believe that you can install ActiveX controls outside of the browser and use them with the browser (at least on the local file system, I'm not sure about how this works on a web site). I agree that manual installation is more attractive, but I don't see a big problem with a confirmation dialog and most users would prefer the convenience. Chris Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
