Yes, that's true... I just don't like placing elements in a spot where I know they're not being used. Again, it's a personal preference more than anything. No right or wrong way. Overall, I do like the succinctness of SJ's version.
- philip On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Getify Solutions, Inc. <[email protected]>wrote: > Isn't it true that the where the "movie" param shows up is irrelevant? I > know the inner object will use it's data attribute, but doesn't that mean > it'll probably just ignore the inner movie param if it finds it? as long as > the two have the same URL, doesn't seem like it should cause a problem. > > --Kyle > > > > > *From:* Philip Hutchison <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:33 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Why define param elements twice with static publishing? > > there's one significant difference: the outer object uses the "movie" param > for the URL of the file, while the inner object uses the data attribute to > specify URL. > > <param name="movie" value="myContent.swf" /> > > so SJ's example would need to be modified to: > > <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="780" > height="420"> > * <param name="movie" value="myContent.swf" />* > <!--[if !IE]>--><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" > data="myContent.swf" width="780" height="420"><!--<![endif]--> > <param name="wmode" value="opaque" /> > <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> > <p>Alternative content</p> > <!--[if !IE]>--></object><!--<![endif]--> > </object> > > both approaches are valid. it's a matter of personal preference, and bobby > decided on the current SWFObject syntax. my only concern with SJ's method > is that it probably makes the author more likely to overlook the fallback > content. however, this is a really this is a minor point, and very > debatable. if a code generator is used, it's completely moot. > > - philip > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Getify Solutions, Inc. > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Actually, it seems to me that SJ's suggestion makes sense. I can't see >> any reason why, for non-IE, the <param> elements must appear in both the >> outer <object> *and* the inner <object>. It seems that non-IE simply ignores >> the outer <object> (using the inner one instead) and so the outer one not >> having the duplicated <param>s would be irrelevant. But perhaps we're >> missing something that Bobby knows. >> >> --Kyle >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Sam Sherlock <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:53 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Why define param elements twice with static publishing? >> >> one set of params is for IE the other not - you need to replicate the >> params but not the movie one >> >> generate you code and compare with the wiki examples >> - S >> >> >> >> >> 2009/12/8 raider5 <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Was looking at the markup for static publishing and wondered why the >>> docs suggest declaring the param elements twice? >>> >>> "NOTE: The nested-objects method requires a double object definition >>> (the outer object targeting Internet Explorer and the inner object >>> targeting all other browsers), so you need to define your object >>> attributes and nested param elements twice." >>> >>> Are there issues in using just one set of params as shown below? >>> >>> <object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" >>> width="780" height="420"> >>> <!--[if !IE]>--><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" >>> data="myContent.swf" width="780" height="420"><!--<![endif]--> >>> <param name="movie" value="myContent.swf" /> >>> <param name="wmode" value="opaque" /> >>> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> >>> <p>Alternative content</p> >>> <!--[if !IE]>--></object><!--<![endif]--> >>> </object> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> SJ >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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]<swfobject%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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]<swfobject%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. >> >> -- >> 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]<swfobject%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. >> > > -- > 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]<swfobject%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. > > -- > 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]<swfobject%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. > -- 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.
