Flash and FireFox - two problems. Anyone else?

[SpaceGirl]

I had a quick scoot back through the posts and couldn't see anything on
this... appologies if it has already been talked to death.

I've notice two pretty bad problems with the latest Flash Player on FireFox.

Problem 1

Check out this site: [url]http://www.subhuman.net[/url]. Notice how the Flash movie
doesn't repaint properly? Try dragging another Window over it, or
opening one of the popups. The movie becomes corrupted in FireFox 1.0
and 1.0.1. It only seems to happen if the movie is in a z-indexed <div>.
Really annoying :( Kinda of ruins our site. I cant find any work around
- and I guess it's a Flash bug as it is responsible for repainting it's
movies... isn't it?

Test URL: [url]http://www.subhman.net[/url]

Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0.1 FAILS
Tested: Windows 2000, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
Tested: Windows Server 2003, FireFox 1.0 FAILS

Problem 2

Under FF 1.0.1, loadMovie doesn't work any more! Okay Mozilla must have
changed something, but movies that load other movies into themselves now
seem to stall. If you resize the FF window, the movie sometimes stutters
and appears to load, but the movie does not play properly, or simply
gets stuck.

Test URL: [url]http://64.207.133.120/Erain/illuminations/default.asp[/url]

Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0.1 FAILS
Tested: Windows 2000, FireFox 1.0 WORKS

Arggg. So, what is broken. The player or FireFox, or both? :(

[SpaceGirl]

SpaceGirl wrote:

> I had a quick scoot back through the posts and couldn't see anything on
> this... appologies if it has already been talked to death.
>
> I've notice two pretty bad problems with the latest Flash Player on
> FireFox.
>
> Problem 1
>
> Check out this site: [url]http://www.subhuman.net[/url]. Notice how the Flash movie
> doesn't repaint properly? Try dragging another Window over it, or
> opening one of the popups. The movie becomes corrupted in FireFox 1.0
> and 1.0.1. It only seems to happen if the movie is in a z-indexed <div>.
> Really annoying :( Kinda of ruins our site. I cant find any work around
> - and I guess it's a Flash bug as it is responsible for repainting it's
> movies... isn't it?
>
> Test URL: [url]http://www.subhman.net[/url]
>
> Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
> Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0.1 FAILS
> Tested: Windows 2000, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
> Tested: Windows Server 2003, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
>
> Problem 2
>
> Under FF 1.0.1, loadMovie doesn't work any more! Okay Mozilla must have
> changed something, but movies that load other movies into themselves now
> seem to stall. If you resize the FF window, the movie sometimes stutters
> and appears to load, but the movie does not play properly, or simply
> gets stuck.
>
> Test URL: [url]http://64.207.133.120/Erain/illuminations/default.asp[/url]
>
> Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0.1 FAILS
> Tested: Windows 2000, FireFox 1.0 WORKS
>
> Arggg. So, what is broken. The player or FireFox, or both? :(

Oh, and these sites all work in IE6.

[Brandon Bradley]

SpaceGirl wrote:

>> Arggg. So, what is broken. The player or FireFox, or both? :(

> Oh, and these sites all work in IE6.

I took a look at them both on w2k and FF1.0 and didn't really notice any
problems. The first one did have a weird display issue when I drug
another window over it where parts disappeared, but then it rebuilt
itself pretty quicly. Perhaps that may have soemthing to do with the way
you are building up the picture? You might try placing a complete copy
of the picture in the background (after it is built) and see if that
resolves it at all.

Very cool on both sites btw. :)

--
Brandon Bradley
Macromedia Certified Instructor
[url]http://www.attconline.org/[/url]

[Jeckyl]

Sounds like the wonderful FireFox everyone raves about is not as wonderful
as first thought. Nor is having yet another new browser in the market place
a necessarily a good thing ... sometimes less variety in the market place is
MUCH better for all concerned. Hopefully Firefox and Macromedia can get
those issue resolved quickly. Mind you, there are well known bugs in Flash
that have been around for years and not been fixed.. so I wouldn't hold your
breath :)
--
All the best,
Jeckyl

[Samuria]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:49:31 +0000, SpaceGirl
<NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:

I tried both sites with no problems using FF 101 xp sp2. I did notice
that you arnt using Flash but a 3rd party tool. I suspect that is were
the problem is

>I had a quick scoot back through the posts and couldn't see anything on
>this... appologies if it has already been talked to death.
>
>I've notice two pretty bad problems with the latest Flash Player on FireFox.
>
>Problem 1
>
>Check out this site: [url]http://www.subhuman.net[/url]. Notice how the Flash movie
>doesn't repaint properly? Try dragging another Window over it, or
>opening one of the popups. The movie becomes corrupted in FireFox 1.0
>and 1.0.1. It only seems to happen if the movie is in a z-indexed <div>.
>Really annoying :( Kinda of ruins our site. I cant find any work around
>- and I guess it's a Flash bug as it is responsible for repainting it's
>movies... isn't it?
>
>Test URL: [url]http://www.subhman.net[/url]
>
>Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
>Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0.1 FAILS
>Tested: Windows 2000, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
>Tested: Windows Server 2003, FireFox 1.0 FAILS
>
>Problem 2
>
>Under FF 1.0.1, loadMovie doesn't work any more! Okay Mozilla must have
>changed something, but movies that load other movies into themselves now
>seem to stall. If you resize the FF window, the movie sometimes stutters
>and appears to load, but the movie does not play properly, or simply
>gets stuck.
>
>Test URL: [url]http://64.207.133.120/Erain/illuminations/default.asp[/url]
>
>Tested: Windows XP Pro SP2, FireFox 1.0.1 FAILS
>Tested: Windows 2000, FireFox 1.0 WORKS
>
>Arggg. So, what is broken. The player or FireFox, or both? :(

[Jeckyl]

Your first site has <object> tag without the <embed> tag.

In future, I suggest you try out simply HTML (eg that generated by Flash
itself) and see if the problem goes away .. if so, then it is most likely
the problem is not flash or the browser, but your html (as in this case).

Not sure about the second site problems .. sounds a bit more insidious.

BTW Samuria: What is this about noticing that the OP used a tool other than
flash ??
--
All the best,
Jeckyl

[SpaceGirl]

Samuria wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:49:31 +0000, SpaceGirl
> <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
> I tried both sites with no problems using FF 101 xp sp2. I did notice
> that you arnt using Flash but a 3rd party tool. I suspect that is were
> the problem is

And what tool would that be? :) The animation was created in Flash MX
2004. that's not really 3rd party!

[SpaceGirl]

Jeckyl wrote:

> Your first site has <object> tag without the <embed> tag.
>
> In future, I suggest you try out simply HTML (eg that generated by Flash
> itself) and see if the problem goes away .. if so, then it is most likely
> the problem is not flash or the browser, but your html (as in this case).
>

They're not required, and if you use the object tags that Flash itself
generates, you get invalid code. Sadly, Flash MX 2004 does NOT generate
valid HTML.

> Not sure about the second site problems .. sounds a bit more insidious.

Still investigating that myself, as it doesn't seem as straight forwards
as I thought. Some sites DO work.

> BTW Samuria: What is this about noticing that the OP used a tool other than
> flash ??

I was wondering that too :)

[Brandon Bradley]

SpaceGirl wrote:

> They're not required, and if you use the object tags that Flash itself
> generates, you get invalid code. Sadly, Flash MX 2004 does NOT generate
> valid HTML.

The Object tag is for the activex player and the embed will be ignored
by any browser that uses it. However most older browsers do not
recognize it, so the embed tag should be included as a fallback for
older browsers to use (Or any that don't support the object tag.)

So no, not techincally required depending on your target audience, but
it doesn't hurt and will provide more users with your content. For the
small amount of extra effort, I always recommend it.

As to invalid html that Flash MX 2004 generates, could you give a
example of this? I am curious. :)

--
Brandon Bradley
Macromedia Certified Instructor
[url]http://www.attconline.org/[/url]

[Jeckyl]

>> Your first site has <object> tag without the <embed> tag.

>>
>> In future, I suggest you try out simply HTML (eg that generated by Flash
>> itself) and see if the problem goes away .. if so, then it is most likely
>> the problem is not flash or the browser, but your html (as in this case).

>
> They're not required, and if you use the object tags that Flash itself

Yes they are .. <object> for IE (activex), and <embed> for netscape/firefox
.... where did you get that silly idea ??

> generates, you get invalid code. Sadly, Flash MX 2004 does NOT generate
> valid HTML.

No .. it is working code that is generated. That is what is important.

However, embed tags, by their nature, cannot conform to HTML/XHTML
standards, and you always get some compliance errors. But hte code is
PERFECTLY CORRECT .. in that it works on all browsers. If you leave out the
embed tag, or try ot use some of the odd methods of dynamically generating
the embed tag to get strict compliance, then you page will NOT work on many
browsers.

There is simply no way to have both a working web page AND one that is
strictly HTML standard compliant.

If your doing some techinical paper, and your site is never going on the
web, then fine .. be strictly compliant. But for any site that you wish
other people to use, forget the compliance wrt <embed> tag, and instead use
code the actually WORKS!!

Its like looking at someone who is quite capable of walking but with one leg
a fraction longer that the other and saying "Oh dear, one leg is longer than
the other, that doesn't comply with the standard ... lets cut both your legs
off to make them the same and then you'll be able to walk just fine" !!!!
:):):)
--
All the best,
Jeckyl

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-01 03:49:31 -0800, SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> said:


FYI... I tested your sites in Firefox 1.01 on Mac OS X and encountered
no problems at all.
--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[SpaceGirl]

Jeckyl wrote:

>>>Your first site has <object> tag without the <embed> tag.
>>>
>>>In future, I suggest you try out simply HTML (eg that generated by Flash
>>>itself) and see if the problem goes away .. if so, then it is most likely
>>>the problem is not flash or the browser, but your html (as in this case).

>>
>>They're not required, and if you use the object tags that Flash itself

>
>
> Yes they are .. <object> for IE (activex), and <embed> for netscape/firefox
> ... where did you get that silly idea ??
>

*sighs*. Did you bother to check, or did you just make that up? REALITY,
which seems to have skipped you by:

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
data="../animation/news.swf" width="239" height="304">
<param name="movie" value="../animation/news.swf" />
</object>

That's a cut and paste for a FULLY VALIDATING XHTML web page on a LIVE
web site that works perfectly in IE and Mozilla. [url]www.subhuman.net[/url]

>>generates, you get invalid code. Sadly, Flash MX 2004 does NOT generate
>>valid HTML.

>
> No .. it is working code that is generated. That is what is important.

So why is that "no". The answer is "yes". The code does not validate. It
may WORK, but it doesn't validate. Yes to it working being more
important, of course. But because the code is messy, perhaps IE7 or
FireFox 1.1 wont render it properly...? The only way to ensure FURTURE
compatibity is to make sure you stick as close as you can to the
standards. All the browser manuafactures work towards rendering the very
best standards these days, so it would be insane to encourage people to
write anything but good validating code.

> However, embed tags, by their nature, cannot conform to HTML/XHTML
> standards, and you always get some compliance errors. But hte code is
> PERFECTLY CORRECT .. in that it works on all browsers. If you leave out the
> embed tag, or try ot use some of the odd methods of dynamically generating
> the embed tag to get strict compliance, then you page will NOT work on many
> browsers.

Just try it. See above. Only Netscape 4 chokes on missing EMBED tags.

> There is simply no way to have both a working web page AND one that is
> strictly HTML standard compliant.

Yes there is. Obviously you've not even tried.

> If your doing some techinical paper, and your site is never going on the
> web, then fine .. be strictly compliant. But for any site that you wish
> other people to use, forget the compliance wrt <embed> tag, and instead use
> code the actually WORKS!!

You dont need the embed tag in anything but Netscape 4. So you are
sacrificing valid HTML and future browser support simply because of one
browser that almost nobody uses? Doesn't that strike you as dumb? NS4
doesn't even register on most browser profiles these days because so few
people use it.

> Its like looking at someone who is quite capable of walking but with one leg
> a fraction longer that the other and saying "Oh dear, one leg is longer than
> the other, that doesn't comply with the standard ... lets cut both your legs
> off to make them the same and then you'll be able to walk just fine" !!!!
> :):):)

Whatever.

[SpaceGirl]

Brandon Bradley wrote:

> SpaceGirl wrote:
>

>> They're not required, and if you use the object tags that Flash itself
>> generates, you get invalid code. Sadly, Flash MX 2004 does NOT
>> generate valid HTML.

>
>
> The Object tag is for the activex player and the embed will be ignored
> by any browser that uses it. However most older browsers do not
> recognize it, so the embed tag should be included as a fallback for
> older browsers to use (Or any that don't support the object tag.)
>
> So no, not techincally required depending on your target audience, but
> it doesn't hurt and will provide more users with your content. For the
> small amount of extra effort, I always recommend it.
>

None that matter, and you run the risk of misrendering on modern
browsers by using invalid code.
If a user has a browser that is too old to do this stuff, they are not
likely to have CSS or proper DOM support either... and the chances of
them having the version of the Flash player you need?

It stops being worth the effort.

> As to invalid html that Flash MX 2004 generates, could you give a
> example of this? I am curious. :)

Just preview your Flash movie. Point the W3C validator at the code it
generates in the HTML container page.

[Jeckyl]

> Whatever.

Exactly .. Give bad advice all you want sweety. I've been there and done
that with xhtml ... never found a single example that worked on all
browsers. If yours did .. great .. but you admit yourself it doesn't.
Point proven.

[Jeckyl]

there is more chance of is rendering WITHOUT the embed tag than with it.
I've never come across any browser the misrenders because of an embed tag ..
I have come across ones that misrender when you try to use xhtml compliant
code. For widest audience with most reproducible results .. include both
object and embed.

NOTE: The only reason embed tags are not in the standard is that the
attributes vary depending on the control, so one cannot standardise on the
attributes. But the thing is, the controls that use them DO understand the
attributes, and that's what matters, and other browsers that don't use embed
ignore them. No harm done.
--
All the best,
Jeckyl

[SpaceGirl]

Jeckyl wrote:

>>Whatever.

>
>
> Exactly .. Give bad advice all you want sweety. I've been there and done
> that with xhtml ... never found a single example that worked on all
> browsers. If yours did .. great .. but you admit yourself it doesn't.
> Point proven.
>
>

HTML doesn't work in all browsers either. Perhaps you should advice
people to not use that at all. Actually, given that Flash doesn't work
in all browser, WTF does this newsgroup even exist?

[Brandon Bradley]

Jeckyl wrote:

It should also be pointed out that the recomendation from Macromedia and
general industy standard is to include both tags.
--
Brandon Bradley
Macromedia Certified Instructor
[url]http://www.attconline.org/[/url]

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-04 05:43:41 -0800, SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> said:

> Jeckyl wrote:

>>> Whatever.

>>
>>
>> Exactly .. Give bad advice all you want sweety. I've been there and
>> done that with xhtml ... never found a single example that worked on
>> all browsers. If yours did .. great .. but you admit yourself it
>> doesn't. Point proven.
>>
>>

>
> HTML doesn't work in all browsers either. Perhaps you should advice
> people to not use that at all. Actually, given that Flash doesn't work
> in all browser, WTF does this newsgroup even exist?

What are you talking about? Look, the embed tag IS for non IE
browsers. Check Macromedia's website and they'll inform you the same.
If you put in the embed tag it will support all non-IE and non-Windows
browsers that have Flash installed as a plug-in, trust me.

Are you new to Flash or something? This has been the way it's been
done since the beginning. GoLive, Dreamweaver, even Flash itself all
produce this code the way we are talking about.

Also, the list of browsers the Flash plug-in doesn't work in is much
shorter than the list that it does. You're spouting some really odd
information here.
--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-04 01:46:19 -0800, SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> said:

> Brandon Bradley wrote:

>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>

>>> They're not required, and if you use the object tags that Flash itself
>>> generates, you get invalid code. Sadly, Flash MX 2004 does NOT generate
>>> valid HTML.

>>
>>
>> The Object tag is for the activex player and the embed will be ignored
>> by any browser that uses it. However most older browsers do not
>> recognize it, so the embed tag should be included as a fallback for
>> older browsers to use (Or any that don't support the object tag.)
>>
>> So no, not techincally required depending on your target audience, but
>> it doesn't hurt and will provide more users with your content. For the
>> small amount of extra effort, I always recommend it.
>>

>
> None that matter, and you run the risk of misrendering on modern
> browsers by using invalid code.
> If a user has a browser that is too old to do this stuff, they are not
> likely to have CSS or proper DOM support either... and the chances of
> them having the version of the Flash player you need?
>
> It stops being worth the effort.
>

>> As to invalid html that Flash MX 2004 generates, could you give a
>> example of this? I am curious. :)

>
> Just preview your Flash movie. Point the W3C validator at the code it
> generates in the HTML container page.

Is it more important for your page to validate on W3C's site without
any issue or for your site to render in 99% of the browsers in the
world?

On Opera, Konquerer, Safari, Firefox, IE, and dozens more (all brand
new!) the embed tag being placed in the object like Jackyl has said
works 100% of the time. You're worrying about some future browser that
doesn't exist yet apparently.

Validation is only important when it provides you with cross-platform
code that works across the board. It will not help you in this case,
but instead hinder you. Show me 1 browser that will NOT render the
standard HTML code used for putting Flash on a page. One major
browser, not something a guy in his basement developed that only runs
W3C verified code.
--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-04 05:43:41 -0800, SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> said:

> Jeckyl wrote:

>>> Whatever.

>>
>>
>> Exactly .. Give bad advice all you want sweety. I've been there and
>> done that with xhtml ... never found a single example that worked on
>> all browsers. If yours did .. great .. but you admit yourself it
>> doesn't. Point proven.
>>
>>

>
> HTML doesn't work in all browsers either. Perhaps you should advice
> people to not use that at all. Actually, given that Flash doesn't work
> in all browser, WTF does this newsgroup even exist?

However, if you insist on not putting the embed tag inside the object
tag and don't want your precious validation to give you a warning...
then you can always make a javascript that detects the browser and if
it's IE on Windows document.write the object tag and if it's not then
write the embed tag. Problem solved on both ends.

Unless of course the validator tells you that Javascript is invalid.
Then what?
--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }