Hi Jonathan, Thanks for making the updates, we're all happy now :-)
> Two looming questions. > > I have a sandbox @http://jquery.thewikies.com/swfobject/sandbox/ > where I've been twisting and torturing certain features of SWFObject > to determine the best course of action. I noticed that SWFObject > attaches objects to the DOM versus generating a string to inject via > inner or outer HTML. Is there a performance reason for this? This is only used for Internet Explorer. IE is a plain pain when it comes to the DOM and the HTML object element, because for some odd reason they've only partially integrated it in the DOM, with the result that we can only fully control it with innerHTML/outerHTML. > How do any community members and certainly SWFObject authors here feel > about me adding functionality to the jQuery port that allows users to > generate and return the flash embedding without forcibly attaching it > to the DOM, e.g: returning the virtual elements to be used later. > Maybe SWFObject already does this? Does what I'm suggesting make > sense? Chaining is a very powerful and important concept in jQuery, so I think that your audience (jQuery authors) expect this behavior. swfobject.createSWF already returns the newly created object element (see: http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/wiki/api ), however swfobject.embedSWF doesn't (why is partially discussed in issue report 126: http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/issues/detail?id=126 ). Hope this answers your questions, Bobby --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SWFObject" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
