Security is the browser's responsibility. You cannot blame a language for insecure implementations of it. (You *can* blame for trying to be too much like Java whilst discarding type-safety, using a different inheritance model etc. -- but that is another story.)

I think the html with plug-ins model is so ubiquitous now for presenting dynamic content that, although it may have flaws, it is much better to use the standard than to invent a new one (we are not Micro$oft, after all). Plug-ins will continue to evolve. E users will have much more flexibility if they have the option to install, for example, the latest flash player in their background manager. Also, the mechanisms already exist for specifying content from local or remote locations - great for people with always-online machines.

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:17:48 GMT, Richard Martin said:

  
Why not make the background an html browser which supports plug-ins. 
That way backgrounds could be written in plain html, html with 
javascript or even Flash. You can't get more flexible than that.
    

Javascript has enough security issues in a browser.  You want it
on your *DESKTOP*???

  

==============================================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. All information is the view of the individual and not necessarily the company. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify:
postmaster@magex.com


==============================================================================