On 4/10/06, John Dowdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Related question: Do you see reasons why so much of this conversation
>>about ActiveX changes in the Microsoft browser has avoided the source
>>material on the Adobe site? Reporters are frequently getting the facts
>>wrong ("ads won't play" etc), and on the lists there's sort of a
>>goldrush to be handrolling other solutions. Any ideas I should consider
>>here? Thanks.
John Grden wrote:
What's cool about the blog entries is I can get to the author right away
with a comment or email and I usually have the benefit of other comments
which might not only clarify the blog's post, but actually offer another
reference. That and I now have 5+ other people I can email about the post
and get help from them.
Thanks, John, but I'm still confused... the Active Content Center hit
tons of blogs before other news or approaches did. True, these blogs
pointed to resources on a website, rather than containing a shorter set
of resources themselves, but the Active Content Center was still
discoverable through blogs, so it's hard for me to see that this is the
key difference...?
(I understand what you say about the dating of web pages, though, that's
a peeve I've raised too.)
Andrew Lucking wrote:
Good question. My perception is that this time around Adobe was slower to
get *solutions* available. For whatever reasons it was only late last week
that I was able to point folks to some workaround samples from Adobe. With
the browser update already circulating as an optional download and rumours
of it being included in this week's security patch from MS maybe folks
started without Adobe's guidance?
This is hard for me to understand too, because the Adobe Developer
Center had the basic algorithms and examples up before anyone else
started to do so. The material that was added this week was additional
material, such as the hotfix to Flex 1.5 to change the way its templates
handled OBJECT/EMBED.
Bill Lane wrote:
I actually think that the problem was that Adobe was too quick to
respond. They've had a solution up since the first round of worry hit
this forum. But I think it was so long ago that most forgot about it.
Then when it hit the press again they didn't remind people firmly
enough. They treated like the old news it was. Rather than the new
news that most still think it is.
Good point... by the time the newspapers had the scary articles we were
probably already off the radar. This case was particularly dejavuful
because Macromedia had similar material up on the website two years ago,
when a stricter browser change was about to be deployed. I've gotten
whiplash from trying to follow the play-by-play on this whole issue
myself.... ;-)
Weldon MacDonald wrote:
> What happens to a current browser if you make the switch?
Here's a page which has links to both inline OBJECT/EMBED as well as
tags in an external JavaScript file, so you can see both behaviors in
your own updated IE... there's also a Captivate presentation on that
page if you prefer not to use an updated Internet Explorer yourself.
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/articles/before_after.html
tx,
jd
--
John Dowdell . Adobe Developer Support . San Francisco CA USA
Weblog: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd
Aggregator: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mxna
Technotes: http://www.macromedia.com/support/
Spam killed my private email -- public record is best, thanks.
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software
Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training
http://www.figleaf.com
http://training.figleaf.com
