You make a good point about mobile devices, etc. Klaus -- point taken. I'm still not convinced about using <object /> though -- for me it's got a number of cons:
* It's messy -- you need different code for different browsers. All the browsers support <object />, but IE wants a different <object /> than the rest. * It doesn't work *properly* everywhere -- IE doesn't stream <object />-only swfs, and the whole flash-satay setup is pretty ugly. * You still need non-standard markup -- the only way I've been able to get Safari to recognize flashvars is to add a flashvars="..." attribute to the <object /> (as well as a separate <param name="flashvars" ... />), which breaks validation. (If I'm wrong about any of the above, please correct me). Using javascript to detect flash and insert the embed tag solves the alternate content problem. In my mind, the only con of using <embed /> is that it's not written in the spec. But, since it's centralized in one place (the function that does the replacements), it's pretty easy to swap out in the future if necessary. Luke Klaus Hartl wrote: > I wonder who is sticking the sand in the head? In 2006 there's really no > need to stick to embed. A proper and even valid object is also supported > by all browsers on jQuerys support list (and more). > > See it the other way round. Sooner or later the legacy embed tag will > not be supported anymore by newer browsers as the web moves on. Think of > mobile devices etc. > > With object you can also have a reasonable fallback in case the plugin > is not supported: > > <object ...> > <p><a href="...">Download plugin</a></p> > </object> > > Or even better: > > <object ...> > <p><a href="some.mp3">Download MP3</a></p> > </object> > > > -- Klaus > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > [email protected] > http://jquery.com/discuss/ _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list [email protected] http://jquery.com/discuss/
