hmm.. I only resurrected the JRE page at the specific
request of a user. I am not convinced it is a good
method to use, given the vagaries of showDocument().
But.. if you wanted to update it for 1.6, you might
change ..
...
Class.forName("java.lang.Appendable");
javaVersionNumber++;
...
...for this..
...
Class.forName("java.lang.Appendable");
javaVersionNumber++;
Class.forName("java.awt.Desktop");
javaVersionNumber++;
...
It would be nice to keep the classes as all
java.lang.??, but as far as I dould determine,
there were no new *classes* in lang for 1.6.
2. the docs should probably say [requires 1.3+] etc.
It is compiled for Java 1.1. I thought that would be
'inuitively obvious', but your comment makes me realise
my mistake*.
3. it would be clearer if instead of [v1.2] you said [value="1.2"]
Good point*.
4. it is not clear what you are doing with all those vxx links.
Perhaps a real-life example of use would be best, with the <param
shown without having to peek at the source.
Not sure I understand what you mean, but the unfortunate
thing for most developers is that having a recent VM means
it is very hard to see it 'redirect' - unless I include
arbitrary values (version='9.3').
* Things I would change, assuming I ever revisit that
page. But personally, I think JWS provides better
versioning options, and applets are (largely) passe,
in any case..
Andrew T.