3 ms·
The fact that they're open source doesn't matter. We (humanity) have largely compatible open-source implementations of ActiveX in Wine and ReactOS, and if W3C o
by mappu 15y ago
The fact that they're open source doesn't matter. We (humanity) have largely compatible open-source implementations of ActiveX in Wine and ReactOS, and if W3C or ISO or someone had deigned to standardise ActiveX this code would've found its way into Gecko and KHTML.
Plus, NaCl is closer than "something like" to ActiveX. What do you consider to be the salient difference between the two technologies?
- kaiuhl 15y agoThe salient point is that Native Client is open source and the standard can be adopted by Firefox, Opera, and Safari if developers find that it meets their needs. Native Client is built on OpenGL (cross platform compatible) where ActiveX was developed against the Windows APIs. Wine has been a long time in the making and certainly wasn't ready to be integrated into Mozilla for ActiveX compatibility on Mac OS, Linux, or even alternative browsers on Windows in 1996, so it's kind of a silly point to make.
- ootachi 15y agoNative Client is built on Pepper, a proprietary Chrome technology. The NPAPI port for other browsers was abandoned.
- nknight 15y ago> Native Client is built on Pepper, a proprietary Chrome technology http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/ppapi/ http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/ppapi/ Why are you ranting about things you clearly know nothing about? > The NPAPI port for other browsers was abandoned You're bitching up and down this thread about standards, and now you're defending the ancient, non-standard Netscape plugin architecture? Do you have any clue what you're talking about, or are you just here to be anti-Google?