I can't speak for Adobe... Bobby or Geoff may have better answers on that topic. I do hope that they'll find a way to keep SWFObject up-to-date, perhaps by using the Google Ajax API URL? (I doubt they'll use the Google Ajax API URL, as Adobe rarely relies on online files and prefers to use local copies for everything)
RE: API changes in 2.2, I don't think there are any huge changes from an general syntax point of view, though the API has had numerous bug fixes and has also become more 'open'. Bobby has kept a log of changes at the SWFObject Google Code site. http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/wiki/whats_new I'm currently working on a new site dedicated to teaching people (beginners and advanced users) how to use SWFObject. My hope is that it will provide solid examples and explanations so people can help themselves. It has been set up using Wordpress, which allows people to add comments to every example/tutorial. I don't have an ETA for it yet, as I can only work on it in my spare time, and I haven't had much spare time lately. :) And FYI: Aran and Bobby have been working to improve the documentation in the Google Code site, too. If you have topics to contribute to the FAQ section, by all means, please let us know! - philip On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Vincent Polite < [email protected]> wrote: > Well phrased answer, Philip. Any thought been given how a certain version > of SWFObject gets locked in to the Adobe suite of products and how updates > to the SWFObject project would change/effect how Adobe intends on using the > product? I'm also curious how support will factor based on people having > problems using Adobe products when trying to embed Flash vs. people who are > still dropping in SWFObject "live." > > Also curious about the API (I'll need to check the new release notes); > anything fundamentally changing on the horizon or are the next line of > updates still backwards compatible with what has come before? > > Admittedly, we do seem to get very similar questions quite a bit in the "my > flash movie isn't showing up on the page, what is going on" vein. I'm > wondering if calling out some of the more common issues would be a good > idea? > > I've seen; wonky css, using the wrong version of SWFObject, not putting the > resources in the right directory... I'm sure there are others? > > Hmmm. Not intending to hijack this thread. > > Vincent > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Philip Hutchison <[email protected]>wrote: > >> That "devil's advocate" blog post was written over a year ago; the focal >> point of the post was the 'click to activate' issue, which is now moot -- >> Microsoft settled the EOLAS lawsuit a long time ago and removed the click to >> activate mechanism last year. >> >> SWFObject 2.x isn't just about avoiding the click to activate annoyance; >> it's about supporting standards (<embed> is not a recognized standard) and >> promoting accessibility through the judicious use of fallback HTML content. >> If anyone was using SWFObject simply to get around the click to activate >> mechanism, they were missing the point. >> >> Adobe understands SWFObject is far from useless, and has been in active >> communication with the SWFObject team about incorporating SWFObject in Adobe >> products. This means that more than likely at some point most (all?) of >> Adobe's SWF-producing products will use SWFObject in some form. Adobe has >> already included SWFObject in a number of products, including some of the >> Creative Suite products and Adobe Captivate 4. >> >> Regarding level of support, I respectfully disagree. The SWFObject team >> is very thorough, though I admit as volunteers we may not be the fastest >> bunch. We're actively working to improve our documentation, and this Google >> Group has some great people answering questions every single day. In fact, >> this Google Group more often than not *already has the answers* if people >> take the time to search before posting. A number of us have websites that >> provide working examples and instructions for numerous scenarios (see >> http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/wiki/links). >> >> We even have a free >> generator<http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/swfobject/generator/index.html>that >> will *write your code for you*. You just need to fill out the form >> then copy and paste the code. >> >> What more could you want? :) >> >> - philip >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Getify Solutions, Inc. >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> FWIW, with CS4 and onward, Adobe has dropped their old AC_xxx methods and >>> adopted SWFObject. In Dreamweaver CS4 SWFObject markup is available as a >>> plugin. My guess is, beyond CS4, it'll be automatically included. >>> >>> Regardless of what that article states, SWFObject has not been obviated. >>> The gap may have been narrowed temporarily, but there's a reason that >>> Adobe >>> has now decided SWFObject is the way to go -- because they realize the >>> benefits the library gives. In fact, as flash capability expands and >>> flash >>> content thus propogates more widely, it's more important than ever. And >>> as >>> we continue to enrich the API and functionality with each new release, >>> that'll only continue to rise. >>> >>> You can drive a beat up car and it'll get you around just fine. But for >>> little or no extra cost, why wouldn't you just drive the Cadillac? :) >>> >>> Now, if your complaint is really that SWFObject is harder to >>> understand/use >>> than AC_xxx or Dreamweaver inserted code, that's valuable feedback we can >>> use, and moreover, there's probably help available here to you to bridge >>> that gap. >>> >>> --Kyle >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "ccrider" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:36 AM >>> To: "SWFObject" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Has Dreamweaver CS3 made SWFObject pointless? >>> >>> > >>> > I have Dreamweaver CS3 and I never use it because I just don't see a >>> > big improvement on my machine. >>> > >>> > However, today I launched it and tried to add Flash the easy way >>> > instead of the SWFObject way. I noticed that the embed code was >>> > completely different now ... and it works! >>> > >>> > Then, I found this article: >>> > >>> http://www.pat-burt.com/swfobject/devils-advocate-why-you-shouldnt-use-swfobject/ >>> > ... which basically says SWFObject is useless now that Adobe has >>> > solved the problems for us starting with CS3. >>> > >>> > Do you guys have Dreamweaver CS3? If so, why do you prefer to use >>> > SWFObject? I hate hand-coding the SWFObject every time and am darn >>> > happy to learn that CS3 takes care of this for me (again, like the >>> > good ol' days). >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > CC >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
