The only way to install flash from the browser is via Adobe's website, on
their flash player download page. SWFObject has nothing to do with that kind
of feature. Nor does Express Install.
EI is useful for upgrading someone's older flash player to a new version,
inline automatically inside the browser. It requires a browser restart, but
gracefully takes the user back to the same url/page after restart. Again,
it's only helpful for getting an existing install of flash upgraded, not the
initial install.
SWFObject has effective DETECTION logic for all the above cases, meaning it
can tell you exactly what version, if any, they have, and let you choose
what your page should do base on that. AC_xxx doesn't have that. For
instance, you could say 'if they have no flash, show them an image, if they
have flash 8+ show them A.swf, and if they have flash 10+, show them B.swf'.
Again, impossible (or nearly so) with AC_xxx methods.
SWFObject also provides effective means (via static publishing) of doing
standards-compliant markup with no javascript support required for flash
embedding. It gracefully enhances if javascript is in place by doing version
checks, EI, etc, but the flash is there and embedded, cross-browser, even if
no JS is present. Again, not something AC_xxx does as well, and certainly
not as standards-compliant.
SWFObject also has dynamic publishing, which means at any time of the life
of a page, like in response to user actions or Ajax responses or whatever,
you can dynamically embed a SWF on-the-fly into an existing page. This is
incredibly powerful for RIA's and other complex web pages and web apps.
AC_xxx cannot do it.
SWFObject is also open-source, and has a vibrant support community and tens
(or dare I say hundreds) of thousands of sites using it. Adobe's script on
the other hand has been deprecated even by them, and had very little
official support even when it was their script of choice. Starting with CS4
and going forward, Adobe chose to standardize on SWFObject 2.x, which means
it's getting embedded support in all their authoring products which produce
flash markup. Keep using AC_xxx and you'll be diverging from Adobe's
standards now. Now that is use-at-your-own-risk.
SWFObject has a good selection of companion projects/libraries/scripts which
use, extend, and improve on the core, and cover just about any standard (and
even most exotic) scenarios you could imagine with SWF embedding. AC_xxx was
pretty narrow and limited in its use cases, and pretty inflexible to
extension/adjustment.
-----------------
As for the activeX warning... this shouldn't be happening, even on IE8
(default). It's either a case of non-default stricter settings (likely), or
possibly a corrupt player install (also unfortunately quite possible).
Here's one such thread on it:
https://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=microsoft.public.internetexplorer.beta&tid=8eabe917-2c0e-42de-98b1-afdd25857fa1&cat=&lang=&cr=&sloc=&p=1
In any case, SWFObject's test suite completely passes, with no errors or
warnings, in IE8 (both winXP and Vista). I'd be curious to see if you get
those warnings in YOUR browser by visiting our test pages, any of the links
on here: http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/wiki/test_suite If so, it's
something wrong with your system. We can help troubleshoot and get it
corrected, if you want.
If you change your mind and want to join the movement of SWFObject, we'd
love to have you and help with any issues you have. If you continue to make
your judgments based on a cursory first glance and misinformation, I wish
you the best of luck in the AC_xxx wild-wild-west. :)
--Kyle
--------------------------------------------------
From: 'hendra' <hendra....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:28 AM
To: 'SWFObject' <swfo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: back to AC_RunActiveContent.js