On 23.04.2009, at 20:50, Jerome Peace wrote:


>>> How does the squeak-plugin image differ from the other
>> squeak images?
>>> Can any squeak image be nominated for plugin duty or
>> is there
>>> something that the image has to know how to handle?
>>
>> I view it as some sort of standards to which people can
>> rely to when
>> they embed Squeak projects (*.pr files) into web-pages via
>> <EMBED>...</EMBED> tags. Obviously, no project
>> works in any image.
>> Projects that are supposed to work with Squeak plugin has
>> to be tested
>> with a specific image and squeak-plugin-image is that
>> image.
>>
> Umm. Ok. So the web-plugin image has a sort of contract with the .pr  
> files that want to be run in it.
>
> Is there any reason why we wish a squeak image for a  web-plugin?  
> Rather than an Etoys-image for the web-plugin. I ask this because  
> Squeakland seems to me to be the only one right now persuing this.
> AFAIK they have cornered the market.
>
> I seriously doubt the either the 3.9/3.10 branch wants to pursue  
> maintaining this.
> Ditto for the Pharo branch.
>
> Bert: Any insight into this point?
>
>> In theory, any image could be used with squeak-plugin but
>> it would
>> create a chaos. Creators of projects would not know to what
>> properties
>> of the image they can rely.
>>


Right. The only line of images caring for project compatibility is the  
Squeakland Etoys version.

It would make the most sense to use Etoys as browser plugin image.

- Bert -