Using the object tag in IE

[Michael Winter]

On 12/12/2005 10:01, marc wrote:

[snip]

Mike, what is this magic number
"8AD9C840-044E-11D1-B3E9-00805F499D93"?

Simply put, it identifies the Java Run-time Environment in the Windows
Registry. IE will try to find it using that value, run it, and pass the
applet to it.

Other plug-ins, like Flash, also have these identifiers.

[snip]

Mike

 

[VK]

*very respectfully* <snip>
pls see the thread for details

The problem resides in the very nature of <object>: it implies *a
particular instance of a particular application". If you manage to
force <object> to work like "gimme something of such kind" it will be
already a misuse of the <object> tag. Plus such misuse will not be
guaranteed (and why should it?) across all platforms and applications.

Microsoft JVM is indeed not supported anymore by Microsoft but stull
there are hundreds of places to download the last official update, plus
it is still manageable through the IE settings (up to IE 6.x) The
reason why many Windows-people choose MS JVM (even not supported
anymore) over Sun JVM is the speed (turtle vs. light).

To OP: if my IE vs. People story was interesting to you then you indeed
want to support MS JVM? If so, then you have to forget the Swing sick
sh**. I guess it's clear to you?

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The problem resides in the very nature of <object>: it implies *a
particular instance of a particular application".

It does not.

If you manage to force <object> to work like "gimme something of
such kind" it will be already a misuse of the <object> tag. [...]

No, it is not. Sun itself states that the special Class ID
8AD9C840-044E-11D1-B3E9-00805F499D93 will always refer to the latest
installed version of the JRE, no matter what version that might be --
they call that "dynamic versioning". It is also stated that the JRE
Plugin supports the `object' element since it was officially introduced
in browsers (NN6 [1998]; IE3 [1996-08], IE4 [1997-10] for scripts).

Could we please return to discussing on-topic -- J(ava)Script/ECMAScript?


PointedEars

 

[marc]

VK:

To OP: if my IE vs. People story was interesting to you then you indeed
want to support MS JVM?

Well since it is an intranet application and I can be fairly sure about
the present and future browsers used, I just made this. Although some
would shudder form my code I guess, it works for me.

<form action="scan" method="post">
<br/>
<br/>
<!--[if IE]>
<applet code='JTwainApplet.class' archive='/JTwain.jar' codebase='/' >
</applet>
<![endif]-->
<![if !IE]>
<object classid='java:JTwainApplet.class' archive='/JTwain.jar'
type='application/x-java-applet' codebase='/'> </object>
<![endif]>
</form>

 

[marc]

Jasen:

Why can't the java engine be the activex object?

Ok..., Jasen, you probably mean the engine can be the activex object?
But could you please explain more, and not just make a remark, which
they would call I think in German Klug Scheisserei or something. What
the English term for this is I do not know. Or to say it in Dutch, stop
the 'betweterij' and explain what you bedoelt.

So you can register any engine, JRE or also for example Flash in the
same whey as an active x object, and IE would call it by the same means
as an active x object, right?? That's essentially what happens?

And I excuse myself to Pointer Ears, who probably shudders at this
moment for all this off topic content, sorry, sorry.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Jasen:

Why can't the java engine be the activex object?

Ok..., Jasen, you probably mean the engine can be the activex object?
But could you please explain more, and not just make a remark, which
they would call I think in German Klug Scheisserei or something. [...]
And I excuse myself to Pointer Ears, who probably shudders at this
moment for all this off topic content, sorry, sorry.

PLONK

 

[marc]

Man you are a sick joke really! Typical German Klug Scheisser!

 

[marc]

Me:

But could you please explain more, and not just make a remark, which
they would call I think in German Klug Scheisserei or something. [...]

....

And I excuse myself to Pointer Ears, who probably shudders at this
moment for all this off topic content, sorry, sorry.

Thomas:

PLONK

Ooops....well sorry....

Euh, well actually, that probably...sounds a bit anti German, but
that's not what I meant. I am not anti German. It's just the perfect
word, in German, for something like what people sometimes do. Make one
clever remark, and then don't explain what they really mean. I am very,
very anti Klug Scheisserei though, that is true.

Nevertheless I will study some more on this subject in general. That's
probably the best to do then

Better then bothering you so much, hey ;-)

 

[Marc]

...Klug Scheisser!

Oh, man, I hate posting with google, I do apoligize for that message. I
wanted to cancel it, but it still there...:-(

Thomas, if I am irritated, which I am, absolutely one hundered procent, the
real cause is my own lack of knowlegde, and my stupid impulsive behavior.
Your help though is, in contrary to my knowlegde, absolutely brilliant. So
my thanks even! You're just great.