I looked into this briefly, but it doesn't seem to work in HTML pages. A lot of it was pretty confusing to me though, so I could be dead wrong. I've never seen an example of cid: in use on an HTML page - all the material I could find on the subject related to email.
If you learn anything more about this, be sure to share!! -tom -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernard Poulin Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:18 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Embedding a SWF using base64 and Data: URI scheme I believe Outlook uses resources located in "mime attachments" in the email. I do not think it uses that special data: URI scheme. I did a "view source" from an email in Outlook and got an image URI like the following: <img src='cid:[email protected]'> It seems that cid: is actually a standard described in RFC 2392. Haven said that, anybody tried using "cid:" uris in html documents - does it work? B. 2006/6/2, Kevin Aebig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Does anyone else find it funny that even though IE doesn't support this, > Outlook does? I've received all kinds of stupid emails with encoded > sounds, > images and other objects from relatives... > > !k > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Cheng > Sent: June 2, 2006 3:01 PM > To: Flashcoders mailing list > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Embedding a SWF using base64 and Data: URI > scheme > > Tom Lee wrote: > > > In the original Microsoft list of workarounds for the Eolas patch, one > of > > the possible workarounds was to base64 encode your swf and embed the > data > > inline in your object tag. The original page has since been removed, > and > > the only evidence I can now find of this is at > > http://www.mustardlab.com/developer/flash/standards/, a page being kept > > around for archival reasons (see the "official fixes" section). Though > I > > don't need this technique as an Eolas workaround, I'm still really > curious > > about it. Is it possible to base64 encode a swf file and include that > raw > > data in your web page instead of hosting a separate swf file on your > server? > > > > > Anyone have experience with the Data: URI Scheme? I find it odd that > > Microsoft would include it in their list of workarounds if their browser > > didn't support it, but then again, maybe that's why the page was > removed. > > I'd like to at least get this working in Mozilla browsers. > > Tom, > > Hey, it's Mustard Lab--that's us. I actually work with Sean Christmann, > the author of the page that you referred to, and would refer you to him, > but he's out until Monday so I'll take a stab at elaborating on this. > > The very short answer to your question is that that the data: URI scheme > (RFC 2397) is not supported by Internet Explorer. It does, however, > work with most other browsers on the market, including Firefox, Opera > and Safari. As such, it is not helpful in terms of working around the > recent change in IE to bring it into compliance with the Eolas patent. > > To answer your second question, yes it is possible to use this technique > to encode a SWF file within a containing HTML page. A while back, I > actually managed to write out a second SWF to a HTML page from another > SWF with a bit of Javascript. You can see a working example with source > code here: http://dev.psalterego.com/datauri/. > > Originally, I was experimenting with using the data URI scheme as a > possible means to obfuscate SWFs encoded within an outer wrapper SWF to > make it slightly more difficult for relatively unskilled "script > kiddies" to quickly recover and decompile the bytecodes for the inner > SWF via a simple attack with a decompiler. However, as such a scheme > would result in the inner "protected" SWF being completely inaccessible > to Internet Explorer users, I never pursued this idea further. > > Keep in mind that this technique is not particularly efficient in terms > of file size, particularly if the base 64 encoded data is stored in > HTML. There are also limitations on the maximum possible length of a > URL supported by each browser that effectively limit the size of the > data that you can include via a data URI scheme. > > Jim > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > 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 > _______________________________________________ [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] 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
