Cool. I think we did notice an issue which we're looking into, but hopefully we're in good shape. We'll look into taking the updated version.
Matt On 6/22/09 2:41 AM, "Bobby van der Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote: Matt, re the noscript, I just had tim to test the template, and it works correct.The alternative content is hidden with a CSS declaration by default and uses dynamic CSS to redisplay it when JS is available. So only if CSS is switched off too, you will see 2 blocks, however in reality this will never happen I think. - Bobby On Jun 19, 6:02 am, "Matt Chotin (Adobe)" <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I'm hoping we can take 2.2 into Flex 4, we'll see if we can do the > testing for now since I'm not sure I can get the testcases easily. > > Re the noscript, if you could provide a test with a screenshot > demonstrating the error and file it we'd appreciate this. I raised > this with dev and qa and they said that they have tests for this > scenario and that the browsers were showing the proper content. > > Matt > > On Jun 18, 2:10 am, Bobby van der Sluis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Matt, > > > no, we haven't tested SWFObject 2.2 with Flex 4. However SWFObject 2.2 > > is fully backwards compatible, so I foresee no problems. We don't mind > > doing some regression testing, could you maybe help us out with some > > existing 2.1 test cases, then we will drop v2.2 in and test it across > > multiple platforms/browsers. > > > Furthermore we like to give feedback on the current Flex 4 template, > > and especially the use of the object element in a noscript tag. If > > someone has JavaScript disabled and Flash installed they will see both > > Flash content (via the noscript element) and a message to download > > Flash Player (via SWFObject's alternative content). This is not > > desired. > > > You'd better use SWFObject static publishing, or - a less optimal > > solution but still better than the solution above - use the object > > tags as alternative content itself and omit the noscript element > > (please note that we prefer the first solution and therefore never > > really have tested for the second scenario). > > > - Bobby > > > On Jun 16, 8:59 am, "Matt Chotin (Adobe)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Congrats guys. Has anyone tested the updates with Flex 4? I'd love > > > for us to just drop in the updates and be done, but it'd be great if > > > we had some folks do some validation that we can get away with this > > > (and given our schedule we can't do much in the way of editing our own > > > code). > > > > Matt > > > > On Jun 11, 7:03 am, Bobby <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It's good, go get it! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
