can we stop using activex

Discussion in 'HTML' started by code_wrong, Nov 14, 2005.

  1. code_wrong

    code_wrong Guest

    can we stop using activex?
    Firefox doesn't use activex but we can still see flash, shockwave, movie
    files etc etc ... so ..
    can we stop using activex all together?? ..as it is a pain in the neck ..
    it's nearly always blocked (sensibly enough) by sys admins ...

    for example I have this on a page to embed a java applet:

    <object
    classid="clsid:8AD9C840-044E-11D1-B3E9-00805F499D93"
    codebase="http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/autodl/jinstall-1_4-windows-i586.cab#Version=1,4,0,0" height="581" width="581"> <param name="CODE" value="B_applet.class"> <param name="type" value="application/x-java-applet;version=1.4"> <param name="scriptable" value="false"> <comment> </comment><embed type="application/x-java-applet;version=1.4" code="B_applet.class" scriptable="false" pluginspage="http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/index.html#download" height="581" width="581"> </object>
     
    code_wrong, Nov 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. code_wrong

    Toby Inkster Guest

    code_wrong wrote:

    > can we stop using activex?


    I can't. But that's because I never started.

    > for example I have this on a page to embed a java applet:


    That seems a pretty dumb way to embed a Java applet. Use the <applet>
    element.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Nov 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. code_wrong

    code_wrong Guest

    "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:5n.co.uk...
    > code_wrong wrote:
    >
    >> can we stop using activex?

    >
    > I can't. But that's because I never started.
    >
    >> for example I have this on a page to embed a java applet:

    >
    > That seems a pretty dumb way to embed a Java applet. Use the <applet>
    > element.
    >


    is not <object> the w3c way?
    please be kind and illustrate the way you would do it::
     
    code_wrong, Nov 14, 2005
    #3
  4. code_wrong

    Toby Inkster Guest

    code_wrong wrote:

    > is not <object> the w3c way?


    The W3C has deprecated APPLET, but it's still part of HTML 4.01
    Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and offers the best
    backwards-compatibility of any method of including Java applets.

    > please be kind and illustrate the way you would do it::


    Like this:

    <APPLET code="AudioItem" width="15" height="15">
    <PARAM name="snd" value="Hello.au|Welcome.au">
    Java applet that plays a welcoming sound.
    </APPLET>

    Using OBJECT it would be:

    <OBJECT codetype="application/java"
    classid="AudioItem"
    width="15" height="15">
    <PARAM name="snd" value="Hello.au|Welcome.au">
    Java applet that plays a welcoming sound.
    </OBJECT>

    But the first example will work in Netscape 2+ whereas the second requires
    6.x.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Nov 15, 2005
    #4
  5. code_wrong

    Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > code_wrong wrote:
    >
    > > is not <object> the w3c way?

    >
    > The W3C has deprecated APPLET, but it's still part of HTML 4.01
    > Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and offers the best
    > backwards-compatibility of any method of including Java applets.
    >
    > > please be kind and illustrate the way you would do it::

    >
    > Like this:
    >
    > <APPLET code="AudioItem" width="15" height="15">
    > <PARAM name="snd" value="Hello.au|Welcome.au">
    > Java applet that plays a welcoming sound.
    > </APPLET>
    >
    > Using OBJECT it would be:
    >
    > <OBJECT codetype="application/java"
    > classid="AudioItem"
    > width="15" height="15">
    > <PARAM name="snd" value="Hello.au|Welcome.au">
    > Java applet that plays a welcoming sound.
    > </OBJECT>
    >
    > But the first example will work in Netscape 2+ whereas the second requires
    > 6.x.


    The ActiveX object given appears to be correct if you want to use AX.
    An AX object, if written properly, will validate at the W3C. To avoid
    problems when sites do not support AX for whatever reason, many
    commercial sites add an embed within the AX object. When AX is not
    supported, the embed path within the AX object is taken instead. This
    usually works, but it gives the W3C validator fits. However in many
    cases you can write an ordinary object in a special way so that IE6 and
    other recent browsers work without calling for the special AX id. This
    is what I do for audio and video on the WMP, and it even validates as
    xhtml 1.1 when served with the proper mime type application/xhtml+xml.
    I do not know if this approach also works for Java. AX often allows
    more control of the object, but ordinary objects, written in the
    correct way, often will accept the most needed paramaters for embedding
    a WMP, for example, in a web page. It is interesting that the most
    recent Opera browser will accept a pure AX object without another path
    for the WMP. Opera most likely is not supporting AX as such, given
    their attitude toward it. They most likely are using some code
    work-around when only a pure AX object is met. But when you are using
    Java, even if you overcome the AX problem, there are still some who
    have Java turned off.
     
    , Nov 15, 2005
    #5
  6. code_wrong wrote:
    > can we stop using activex?


    You can stop using it any time you like. There are plenty of other
    options out there. ESPECIALLY is you are doing video or audio.

    > Firefox doesn't use activex but we can still see flash, shockwave, movie
    > files etc etc ... so ..


    Actually FireFox DOES support ActiveX if it is available. It also
    supports limited live connect, or that ability for javascript to "talk"
    to the activeX controls on the page. (A rather nice feature is you get
    to choose which activeX controls work)

    > can we stop using activex all together??


    Again, up to you. Can you accomplish the task without it? Then by all
    means lose it.

    > ..as it is a pain in the neck ..


    You can not debate an opinion. There is no account for taste.

    > it's nearly always blocked (sensibly enough) by sys admins ...


    I have never been to a company that blocked activeX. As a matter of
    fact many large corporation require it with their intranet
    applications.

    ActiveX is just a technology. It is completely up to you if you want
    to use it or not.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 15, 2005
    #6
  7. code_wrong

    code_wrong Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > code_wrong wrote:
    >> can we stop using activex?

    >
    > You can stop using it any time you like. There are plenty of other
    > options out there. ESPECIALLY is you are doing video or audio.
    >
    >> Firefox doesn't use activex but we can still see flash, shockwave, movie
    >> files etc etc ... so ..

    >
    > Actually FireFox DOES support ActiveX if it is available. It also
    > supports limited live connect, or that ability for javascript to "talk"
    > to the activeX controls on the page. (A rather nice feature is you get
    > to choose which activeX controls work)
    >
    >> can we stop using activex all together??

    >
    > Again, up to you. Can you accomplish the task without it? Then by all
    > means lose it.
    >
    >> ..as it is a pain in the neck ..

    >
    > You can not debate an opinion. There is no account for taste.
    >
    >> it's nearly always blocked (sensibly enough) by sys admins ...

    >
    > I have never been to a company that blocked activeX. As a matter of
    > fact many large corporation require it with their intranet
    > applications.
    >
    > ActiveX is just a technology. It is completely up to you if you want
    > to use it or not.


    which other technologies allows web sites to mess around with files and
    settings on the local machine?

    The networks I have been looking at are school networks - where, if the user
    can download/install something she shouldn't, she will. I am not entirely
    sure if the activex is being blocked or if the web object itself is being
    blocked. (eg a shockwave object). but if we remove methods which use the
    security blackspot that is acivex then. that at least removes one variable
    in the question: - why can't pupils download educational web objects? -
    shockwave, Java, etc.
    cheers
    cw
     
    code_wrong, Nov 15, 2005
    #7
  8. code_wrong wrote:

    > > ActiveX is just a technology. It is completely up to you if you want
    > > to use it or not.

    > which other technologies allows web sites to mess around with files and
    > settings on the local machine?


    That was exactly WHY activX was created. To give special abilities to
    web pages and web applications. At the time of it's creation, that was
    a good thing and gave some awesome abilities to intranets and websites.

    Sadly Microsoft did not anticipate the backlash and the hackers.

    To quote Reagan "Just because it did not work (as planned), does not
    mean it was a bad idea."

    Again, arguing over an opinion is a complete waste of time.

    --
    -=tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Nov 15, 2005
    #8
  9. code_wrong

    code_wrong Guest

    "Toby Inkster" <> wrote in message
    news:5n.co.uk...
    > code_wrong wrote:
    >
    >> is not <object> the w3c way?

    >
    > The W3C has deprecated APPLET, but it's still part of HTML 4.01
    > Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and offers the best
    > backwards-compatibility of any method of including Java applets.
    >
    >> please be kind and illustrate the way you would do it::

    >
    > Like this:
    >
    > <APPLET code="AudioItem" width="15" height="15">
    > <PARAM name="snd" value="Hello.au|Welcome.au">
    > Java applet that plays a welcoming sound.
    > </APPLET>
    >
    > Using OBJECT it would be:
    >
    > <OBJECT codetype="application/java"
    > classid="AudioItem"
    > width="15" height="15">
    > <PARAM name="snd" value="Hello.au|Welcome.au">
    > Java applet that plays a welcoming sound.
    > </OBJECT>
    >
    > But the first example will work in Netscape 2+ whereas the second requires
    > 6.x.


    well for some reason I could not get the object method to work in IE using
    the example above ...
    When I used applet it worked fine .... this makes me wonder why all the
    books .. the w3c .. sun.com trying to push the object method .. of the
    three books I have here only one mentions the APPLET element .. I think the
    other two are too busy trying to promote the latest standard .. infuriating
    to waste time on this simple operation
     
    code_wrong, Nov 19, 2005
    #9
  10. code_wrong

    Stan McCann Guest

    Toby Inkster <> wrote in news:vf5n43-
    5n.co.uk:

    > code_wrong wrote:
    >
    >> can we stop using activex?

    >
    > I can't. But that's because I never started.


    Lucky you. I'd never used it until preparing for a class I'm teaching
    this semester. The book has an on-line component using ... You guessed
    it. I don't like it and some of my students have had difficulty with
    it because even the firewall in SP2 doesn't like it. This is a novice
    level course; some of my students had never used a computer. And first
    thing we do is to teach them to open their computer to the world and
    have to field all of the calls of "I can't get it to work."

    About half of my students are now using some simple PHP pages I put
    together for them.

    >> for example I have this on a page to embed a java applet:

    >
    > That seems a pretty dumb way to embed a Java applet. Use the <applet>
    > element.
    >


    You can object, embed, or applet all you want; my only java is in my
    cup. :)

    --
    Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
    Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
    http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
    Those that understand binary and those that don't.
     
    Stan McCann, Nov 22, 2005
    #10
  11. code_wrong

    Guest

    Stan McCann wrote:
    > Toby Inkster <> wrote in news:vf5n43-
    > 5n.co.uk:
    >
    > > code_wrong wrote:
    > >
    > >> can we stop using activex?

    > >
    > > I can't. But that's because I never started.

    >
    > Lucky you. I'd never used it until preparing for a class I'm teaching
    > this semester. The book has an on-line component using ... You guessed
    > it. I don't like it and some of my students have had difficulty with
    > it because even the firewall in SP2 doesn't like it. This is a novice
    > level course; some of my students had never used a computer. And first
    > thing we do is to teach them to open their computer to the world and
    > have to field all of the calls of "I can't get it to work."
    >
    > About half of my students are now using some simple PHP pages I put
    > together for them.


    Many people tend to think of ActiveX as something associated with web
    pages, especially those written for Windows IE browsers and relatives.
    But the web is just the tip of the iceberg for uses of ActiveX. It
    often is used at the program level even on computers that may never be
    connected to the web. For those who use a Microsoft OS such as the XP,
    you likely have dozens of ActiveX subprograms and plugins on programs
    that you use. This is especially the case for media programs. For
    example the very popular Roxio and Nero media program sets are loaded
    with ActiveX plugins. I recently installed a GoldWave sound editor so
    that I could work with 24 bit, 96kHz PCM audio files such as are used
    for DVD-Audio standard. This program has a tool on a menu that searches
    other programs for ActiveX plugins that it can use, if you need them.
    It finds about 40 on my computer, with the bulk of them in Roxio, Nero,
    and several other media programs.Heaven knows how many other non-media
    ActiveX applications are on the computer. For example, the McAfee
    antivirus programs use ActiveX controls. When there is a major program
    upgrade, McAfee often asks you to allow downloading a new ActiveX
    control which it needs for the upgraded program. Make no mistake,
    ActiveX is very powerful and very useful, especially on a Windows OS
    based computer. I don't know how much the Windows OS to replace the XP
    will use ActiveX. However until and if most people are not using
    Windows XP and earlier Windows OSs, ActiveX likely still will be used
    very much, especially at the program level on the computer.
     
    , Nov 22, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Matt Theule

    Stop Debugging doesn't stop in ASP.NET

    Matt Theule, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    737
    Matt Theule
    Jul 24, 2003
  2. Son KwonNam
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,605
    mr_organic
    Apr 9, 2004
  3. Will
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    15,246
    Thomas Weidenfeller
    Nov 2, 2004
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    883
  5. vml
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,043
Loading...

Share This Page