[SWFObject] swfobject 1.4 broken in safari 2.0.3 in strict mode

Fri Apr 28 09:12:18 PDT 2006

Well that will probably be the deal-breaker for me. I guess I'll just 
have to go back a version of XHTML and not be totally valid.

Windows typically only ever lets you have one version of IE installed at 
a time. VirtualPC is handy for that.

-josh

Geoff Stearns wrote:
> when i visit that page in IE7 (just installed it) i get prompted to  
> download a file. (it doesn't work)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on a related note: when you install ie7 does it remove ie6? that  
> seems kinda crappy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 28, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Josh Santangelo wrote:
> 
>> I don't know, it's working fine for me in IE 6. And the reason I'm  
>> using
>> it is because I am extending xhtml with an additional namespace.
>>
>> Test here: http://xekogame.dev.endquote.com/
>>
>> -josh
>>
>> Geoff Stearns wrote:
>>> right, that post confirms that IE7 won't s support it either.
>>>
>>> doctype != mime type
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Greg Brant wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fyi re:"ie doens't even support application/xhtm+xml..."
>>>>
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: swfobject-bounces at lists.deconcept.com
>>>> [mailto:swfobject-bounces at lists.deconcept.com] On Behalf Of Geoff
>>>> Stearns
>>>> Sent: 28 April 2006 13:24
>>>> To: swfobject at lists.deconcept.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [SWFObject] swfobject 1.4 broken in safari 2.0.3 in
>>>> strict
>>>> mode
>>>>
>>>> interesting that safari's strict mode doesn't like
>>>> document.location.hash, but firefox is ok with it.
>>>>
>>>> anyway, the dom stuff is a huge pain in the ass to get to work... i
>>>> could make adjustments to make it work in safari, but then it would
>>>> break in opera (opera is amazingly picky when creating elements that
>>>> aren't in the dom).
>>>>
>>>> Then, ie doens't even support application/xhtm+xml...
>>>>
>>>> I did notice that SWFObject does work in Firefox if you send your
>>>> pages
>>>> as applicaton/xhtml+xml, because for some reason they left
>>>> innerHTML on,
>>>> but it's not really a documented feature.
>>>>
>>>> My stance on this subject is basically this: application/xhtml+xml
>>>> is a
>>>> HUGE pain in the ass to get plugins in general to work when using
>>>> Javascript to write them. It seems that every browser requires
>>>> different
>>>> tags and has different quirks, and I think it's just not really  
>>>> worth
>>>> it, since using 'real' xhtml doesn't really have any advantage to
>>>> 99% of
>>>> the people out there.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are using MathML or otherwise extending xhtml, there  
>>>> aren't
>>>> any real benefits to it (not to mention shutting out IE users, or
>>>> sending a text/html version of your page anyway).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 28, 2006, at 2:06 AM, Josh Santangelo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm working on a page which is in XHTML 1.1 strict, and SWF object
>>>>> breaks in Safari. I thought I'd post about it before trying to fix
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> My document starts like this (served with an application/xhtml+xml
>>>>> header):
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
>>>>> "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
>>>>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
>>>>> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>>>>> xmlns:s="http://endquote.com/XMLShell/2.0/" xml:lang="en"> <head>
>>>>> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="application/xhtml+xml;
>>>>> charset=utf-8" />
>>>>>
>>>>> On line 161, it breaks if document.location.search is undefined.
>>>>> Replacing that line with this:
>>>>>
>>>>> var q = location.search || location.hash;
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it dies on line 106 with a "Dom Exception 7", which seems to
>>>>> mean
>>>>> you can't write to the innerHTML (a div in this case).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's looking like the solution is to do a bunch of DOM-style
>>>>> createElement calls, then removeChild all the children of the  
>>>>> target
>>>>> node, then appendChild with the new Flash object.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could go ahead and make that change, but I thought I'd check  
>>>>> to see
>>>>> if anyone can duplicate the error, or tell me why that solution  
>>>>> would
>>>>> be a bad idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> -josh
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> SWFObject mailing list
>>>>> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>>>>> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> SWFObject mailing list
>>>> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>>>> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Inbound email: This email has been scanned for all viruses by
>>>> MessageLabs (CMWN)
>>>>
>>>> –––
>>>> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
>>>> Security System. (CMWN)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> SWFObject mailing list
>>>> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>>>> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> SWFObject mailing list
>>> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>>> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> SWFObject mailing list
>> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
>> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SWFObject mailing list
> SWFObject at lists.deconcept.com
> http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/swfobject-deconcept.com