home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19970326-19970626
/
000322_news@newsmaster….columbia.edu _Wed Jun 18 19:45:27 1997.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
3KB
Return-Path: <news@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA03891
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:45:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA10681
for kermit.misc@watsun; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:45:26 -0400 (EDT)
Path: news.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.msfc.nasa.gov!europa.clark.net!worldnet.att.net!newsadm
From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Announcing Kermit 95 1.1.12 for Windows 95, Windows NT, and OS/2
Date: 18 Jun 1997 19:40:42 -0400
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Lines: 25
Sender: tom@SPIKE.cc.columbia.edu
Message-ID: <u205za39h.fsf@worldnet.att.net>
References: <5np317$6qv$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
<5o4j0f$ivo@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>
<5o68n3$npc$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
<upvtkalpc.fsf@worldnet.att.net>
<5o8srg$82h$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.146.67.225
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Xref: news.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:7183
>How many different releases of each browser? Do they all allow themselves
>to be invoked in this way? If somebody has the answers to these questions,
>it might save us a lot of work.
The way the shell extensions really work "under the hood" should mean that
any browser can be successfully invoked. The ShellExecute function really
winds up looking up information in the registry which describes how to
invoke the browser and if it has a DDE interface so it can talk to an
existing copy. Even if some browser doesn't support the DDE or OLE
interfaces to allow an existing browser to be switched to a new URL
remotely, the registry entries can still describe how to invoke a new copy
with an argument passed in, so in the worst case, it would be able to do
what kermit does today, but in the best case, it would use the existing
browser (but it is hard to imagine anyone shipping a browser today that
doesn't support the fancy interface, at least if they expect anyone to
actually be willing to use it).
The whole "shell extensions" stuff really just boils down to a fancier set
of code that still does just about the same thing the original feature that
"associated" a tool with a file extension did, only now it can recognize
more complicated stuff than a simple file extension (like a leading
"http://" instead of a trailing ".doc", etc.).
--
See <URL:http://home.att.net/~Tom.Horsley> for
information on Government by Performance