Re: [videoblogging] Help with ActiveX (is: browser extension alerts)
[ FYI: This thread was started as a response to another conversation, in the What's The Perfect Vlogging Software? thread. This means that the new topic will be invisible to those whose emailer follows threading conventions, and made the archive misthreaded too: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/39116 Hitting New for new conversations and pasting in the Yahoo Groups mailing address is cleaner than hitting Reply to start a new discussion, thanks in advance. ] Nathan Miller asked for help in understanding this incoming message:: Hey Nathan, do you realise you’ve got ActiveX employed on your Web site? It’s causing these really annoying pop-up messages to appear in my browser every time I access your page. I use IE 6. Can you do something about this? Not knowing the literal alert the person saw makes it hard for any of us to be definitive. If this person is using Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows, then they are by definition using ActiveX Controls to render some of their content. I visited your site in Firefox/WinXP, and also saw alerts. I have an older version of QuickTime installed, but did not have the codecs necessary to view that QT content. Here's what's going on: When someone visits your video page in a plugin-using browser (Mozilla, Safari, Opera, others) then the server identifies the media type of this extended content via the MIME type abbreviations. The browser then checks which plugins it has that can display this video type, invokes the plugin, and displays the content. In Microsoft's Window browser, the OBJECT tag identifies the ActiveX Control which the designer wants to use (via the CLSID), and identifies any minimum version (via the CODEBASE argument). In both cases, the browser will throw up an alert if the plugin or control is not installed. IE/Win will also do a version check, and will also do a background-download of the necessary Control. Some plugins (such as QuickTime, I believe) will also throw up their own alert if the renderer is too old to render more modern content. Bottom line: If your visitor's browser cannot yet render your content, they will see an alert, and the browser will try to guide them to an updated browser extension, in either Netscape Plugin or ActiveX wrapper. What to do? This person will be seeing lots of similar alerts in IE/Win... it's not solely your responsibility. Your *site* doesn't use ActiveX so much as his *browser* uses ActiveX, and your site tries to accommodate their choice. How to minimize? This is self-serving of me, admitted, but it's easiest to use video in the Adobe Flash video architecture. More people have this browser extension than any other, and more people have the current version than have the current versions of any other WWW technology. This will not eliminate all browser-incapability alerts, but will reduce them greatly... in its first three months over 50% of consumers tested had already updated to Flash Player 8, so the odds are much better that your audience will not see any update alerts. Sorry I took so long, but I hope the above background helps figure out what they're objecting to. (And like other folks in this thread, I don't see any connection to the Eolas behavior change in IE/Win... only commonality seems to be the word ActiveX in the title.) 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. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [videoblogging] Help with ActiveX (is: browser extension alerts)
Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: And (more importantly) Flash isn't an open format (like HTML, XML, PNG, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora, etc) that everyone has the freedom to implement and do whatever they want with. Actually, since about 1998 or so, anyone can create SWF: http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/developer/ What's controlled is the Macromedia source code for the rendering engine, so that there aren't the forking and compatibility difficulties we see among the various WWW browsers. Flash is a proprietary format owned by Adobe/Macromedia. And Adobe/Macromedia restricts what can and can't be done with their free/gratis Flash player. Not to mention Adobe/Macromedia seems to be the only ones allowed to create server side software for Flash... for example, the RTMP protocol is completely closed and proprietary... and it's yet to be seen if Adobe/Macromedia would invoke the DMCA against anyone who reverse engineered it. There are many non-Adobe servers which work with SWF: http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects#servers_and_remoting The RTMP issue is trickier, because Adobe *licenses* third-party codecs (Fraunhoffer, Nelly-Moser, Sorenson, Duck) for inclusion... it's hard to document what others own. For that cussword proprietary itself, it starts to get fuzzier the closer you look at it: Is 'Open and Shut' actually open-and-shut? (March 2003) http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/jd_forum/jd026.html But having said all that, I do think it is acceptable to have Flash as one of many different options of watching a vlog. But it should NOT be the only one. I agree... arbitrary prohibitions aren't useful. 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. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] Help with ActiveX (is: browser extension alerts)
Hello,IE7 is suppose to finally support transparent and translucent PNG's.But even with older version of IE, you can have transparent and translucent PNG's if you add a little CSS hack. (This hack actually seemed to piss some people off, because there's no reason that MS couldn't have done this by default in IE.) If you run all the images on your page through a certain DirectX filter (using CSS) you can get PNG transparency and translucency. See yaOn 4/21/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nice idea, but given how long it's taken to get support for just JPEG, GIF and PNG in the img tag, i'm not too hopeful about a universal video tag that supports multiple video formats i think we're on our own on this > does IE know how to *properly* display a transparent PNG yet? I doubt it :p Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello John, Honestly, I'd rather see browsers (and other software) support video natively. (The same way that, for example, PNG's are supported natively and do NOT require a plug-in to be viewed.) And have it so all you need is to use a video element to embed videos... like the how HTML img element embeds images. (SMIL already has a video element.) I like Flash. (And I really don't want to get into a heated debate but,) (Although alot of people can) Not everyone can view Flash. And (more importantly) Flash isn't an open format (like HTML, XML, PNG, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora, etc) that everyone has the freedom to implement and do whatever they want with. Flash is a proprietary format owned by Adobe/Macromedia. And Adobe/Macromedia restricts what can and can't be done with their free/gratis Flash player. Not to mention Adobe/Macromedia seems to be the only ones allowed to create server side software for Flash... for example, the RTMP protocol is completely closed and proprietary... and it's yet to be seen if Adobe/Macromedia would invoke the DMCA against anyone who reverse engineered it. But having said all that, I do think it is acceptable to have Flash as one of many different options of watching a vlog. But it should NOT be the only one. You have to have a way for completely Free access to vlogs and Internet TV. (There should NOT be a tax on vlogs and Internet TV.) Please, refer to this for something related: http://maketelevision.com/log/why_ogg_theora_matters_for_internet_tv See ya On 4/21/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ FYI: This thread was started as a response to another conversation, in the What's The Perfect Vlogging Software? thread. This means that the new topic will be invisible to those whose emailer follows threading conventions, and made the archive misthreaded too: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/39116 Hitting New for new conversations and pasting in the Yahoo Groups mailing address is cleaner than hitting Reply to start a new discussion, thanks in advance. ] Nathan Miller asked for help in understanding this incoming message:: Hey Nathan, do you realise you've got ActiveX employed on your Web site? It's causing these really annoying pop-up messages to appear in my browser every time I access your page. I use IE 6. Can you do something about this? Not knowing the literal alert the person saw makes it hard for any of us to be definitive. If this person is using Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows, then they are by definition using ActiveX Controls to render some of their content. I visited your site in Firefox/WinXP, and also saw alerts. I have an older version of QuickTime installed, but did not have the codecs necessary to view that QT content. Here's what's going on: When someone visits your video page in a plugin-using browser (Mozilla, Safari, Opera, others) then the server identifies the media type of this extended content via the MIME type abbreviations. The browser then checks which plugins it has that can display this video type, invokes the plugin, and displays the content. In Microsoft's Window browser, the OBJECT tag identifies the ActiveX Control which the designer wants to use (via the CLSID), and identifies any minimum version (via the CODEBASE argument). In both cases, the browser will throw up an alert if the plugin or control is not installed. IE/Win will also do a version check, and will also do a background-download of the necessary Control. Some plugins (such as QuickTime, I believe) will also throw up their own alert if the renderer is too old to render more modern content. Bottom line: If your visitor's browser cannot yet render your content, they will see an alert, and the browser will try to guide them to an updated browser extension, in either Netscape Plugin or ActiveX wrapper. What to do? This person will be seeing lots of similar alerts in IE/Win... it's not solely your responsibility. Your *site* doesn't use ActiveX so much as his *browser*
Re: [videoblogging] Help with ActiveX (is: browser extension alerts)
Hello JohnOn 4/21/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: And (more importantly) Flash isn't an open format (like HTML, XML, PNG, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora, etc) that everyone has the freedom to implement and do whatever they want with. Actually, since about 1998 or so, anyone can create SWF:http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/developer/When I say open format I mean it essentially as described in this document: http://www.goland.org/buyingopenstandards (Although, I'd probably go even further than what this document says for what I'd say is open.)Adobe/Macromedia requires that you agree to all sorts of conditions before you look at or use those documents. (Which is their legal prerogative to do.) But, for example, one could NOT create a alternative Flash player using that information. (For example, Gnash could NOT use those documents.)And because of that it is NOT open. (Although, please note that I think Macromedia has been very good with the developer community. And I like Macromedia and their products. But I think it's important to point out that SWF isn't an open format. Doesn't mean it's bad. Doesn't mean people shouldn't use it. But it's important to note make that note.) What's controlled is the Macromedia source code for the renderingengine, so that there aren't the forking and compatibility difficulties we see among the various WWW browsers.Yeah, I do understand that side of it. (Compatibility is important.) And I understand Adobe/Macromedia's business motivations. (Last I heard, most of Macromedia's income was from licensing the Flash player for devices like cell phones. Not sure what things are like now after the merger.) (And just to say it explicitly, there is NOTHING wrong with having business motivations.) But other people have other motivations too. For example, the people on the Free software side of things wants a Free (as in Freedom) Flash player.(And honestly, I think their concerns are very important. No one really classifies them as this, but the Free software movement is really a Civil Rights movement. It's about protecting people's freedom. And getting back freedoms we lost. The Free software movement is as important to all this stuff as the hippocratic oath is to the field of medicine. But again,... I don't want to get into a heated debute.) I know if Adobe/Macromedia released the Flash player under the GNU GPL (or a license compatible to it) it would make them happy. But... I have a feeling Adobe/Macromedia might be reluctant to do this given the revenue stream their getting from it. I suppose I'm getting off-topic here though :-) Flash is a proprietary format owned by Adobe/Macromedia.And Adobe/Macromedia restricts what can and can't be done with their free/gratis Flash player.Not to mention Adobe/Macromedia seems to be the only ones allowed to create server side software for Flash... for example, the RTMP protocol is completely closed and proprietary... and it's yet to be seen if Adobe/Macromedia would invoke the DMCA against anyone who reverse engineered it.There are many non-Adobe servers which work with SWF: http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects#servers_and_remotingThe RTMP issue is trickier, because Adobe *licenses* third-party codecs (Fraunhoffer, Nelly-Moser, Sorenson, Duck) for inclusion... it's hard todocument what others own.Would it be possible for Adobe/Macromedia to document the non-codec part of it? (And if possible, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to make that documentation an open specification.) (Going off on a tangent) Thinking about it, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to use an Free codec (in addition to these). For example, would Adobe/Macromedia be willing to use the Theora codec too?That way there could be an open SWF, RTMP, etc. (Although there'd be the non-open stuff too.) For that cussword proprietary itself, it starts to get fuzzier the closer you look at it:Is 'Open and Shut' actually open-and-shut? (March 2003)http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/jd_forum/jd026.html You're correct. There is alot of ambiguity with the word open. Again, I'll refer you to the following document to let you know what I mean: http://www.goland.org/buyingopenstandards (But again, please keep in mind that I'd probably go even further than what this document says for what I'd say is open.)See ya But having said all that, I do think it is acceptable to have Flash as one of many different options of watching a vlog.But it should NOT be the only one.I agree... arbitrary prohibitions aren't useful. jd[...]-- Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.charles @ reptile.casupercanadian @ gmail.com developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/ ___ Make Televisionhttp://maketelevision.com/ SPONSORED LINKS Fireant Individual Use
Re: [videoblogging] Help with ActiveX (is: browser extension alerts)
i said *properly* for IE 6 problems with PNG', see Microsoft's own bug reports: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;294714 that hack does not always work, sometimes you need a "hot fix" (oh my, sounds exciting): http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822071 as to IE 7, the Microsoft developer who implemented per-pixel alpha in the PNG support himself admits that things are only "looking good" but notes a few exceptions http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04/26/412263.aspx note the interesting comment about how the hack you mention may bite people on upgrading to IE7 http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04/26/412263.aspx#412361 remember: no good deed goes unpunished :) Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello, IE7 is suppose to finally support transparent and translucent PNG's. But even with older version of IE, you can have transparent and translucent PNG's if you add a little CSS hack. (This hack actually seemed to piss some people off, because there's no reason that MS couldn't have done this by default in IE.) If you run all the images on your page through a certain DirectX filter (using CSS) you can get PNG transparency and translucency. See ya On 4/21/06, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nice idea, but given how long it's taken to get support for just JPEG, GIF and PNG in the img tag, i'm not too hopeful about a universal video tag that supports multiple video formats i think we're on our own on this > does IE know how to *properly* display a transparent PNG yet? I doubt it :p Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello John, Honestly, I'd rather see browsers (and other software) support video natively. (The same way that, for example, PNG's are supported natively and do NOT require a plug-in to be viewed.) And have it so all you need is to use a video element to embed videos... like the how HTML img element embeds images. (SMIL already has a video element.) I like Flash. (And I really don't want to get into a heated debate but,) (Although alot of people can) Not everyone can view Flash. And (more importantly) Flash isn't an "open format" (like HTML, XML, PNG, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora, etc) that everyone has the freedom to implement and do whatever they want with. Flash is a proprietary format owned by Adobe/Macromedia. And Adobe/Macromedia restricts what can and can't be done with their free/gratis Flash player. Not to mention Adobe/Macromedia seems to be the only ones allowed to create server side software for Flash... for example, the RTMP protocol is completely closed and proprietary... and it's yet to be seen if Adobe/Macromedia would invoke the DMCA against anyone who reverse engineered it. But having said all that, I do think it is acceptable to have Flash as one of many different options of watching a vlog. But it should NOT be the only one. You have to have a way for completely Free access to vlogs and Internet TV. (There should NOT be a "tax" on vlogs and Internet TV.) Please, refer to this for something related: http://maketelevision.com/log/why_ogg_theora_matters_for_internet_tv See ya On 4/21/06, John Dowdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ FYI: This thread was started as a response to another conversation, in the "What's The Perfect Vlogging Software?" thread. This means that the new topic will be invisible to those whose emailer follows threading conventions, and made the archive misthreaded too: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/message/39116 Hitting "New" for new conversations and pasting in the Yahoo Groups mailing address is cleaner than hitting "Reply" to start a new discussion, thanks in advance. ] Nathan Miller asked for help in understanding this incoming message:: Hey Nathan, do you realise you've got ActiveX employed on your Web site? It's causing these really annoying pop-up messages to appear in my browser every time I access your page. I use IE 6. Can you do something about this? Not knowing the literal alert the person saw makes it hard for any of us to be definitive. If this person is using Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows, then they are by definition using ActiveX Controls to render some of their content. I visited your site in Firefox/WinXP, and also saw alerts. I have an older version of QuickTime installed, but did not have the codecs necessary to view that QT content. Here's what's going on: When someone visits your video page in a plugin-using browser (Mozilla, Safari, Opera, others) then the server identifies the media type of this extended content via the MIME type abbreviations. The browser then checks which plugins it has that can display this video type, invokes the plugin, and displays the content. In Microsoft's Window browser, the OBJECT tag identifies the ActiveX Control which the designer wants to use (via the CLSID), and
