No, I would use a drag command more for writing the

var so = new SWFObject("blah.swf", etc);

stuff... and I would expect the developer to be smart enough to enter their own script include as well as making sure the file is present.  Although I suppose a drag command could work well for the script include, as well.  If you're making a point to use SWFObject, you probably understand the need to also upload the js file, if it's not already present on your site.

But, as you noted, I think there are enough gotchas, like getting the dimensions of the .swf, that it starts to become not worth it.  The whole point of SWFObject is to make it easier to put those <object>/<embed> tags on your page...Most of the SWFObject code one would write is highly variable.

Again, though, my whole point was that SWFObject is an overall better way to put Flash on your HTML page, especially in light of the whole EOLAS thing, and one might be wasting one's time doing drag commands for hard-coded <object>/<embed> tags, when SWFObject is available, and even recommended by Adobe. each his own.  I suppose the developers who use Flash minimally are less concerned about that than I am, as I spend my time making whole sites in Flash or with a large amount of Flash.

At any rate, I think the discussion has gone beyond the scope of a TextMate mailing list, so this will be the last I speak of it.


On 6/30/06, Allan Odgaard <> wrote:
On 1/7/2006, at 2:29, Dru Kepple wrote:

> Do you mean "problem" as in "a problem with buliding the drag
> command" or
> "problem" as in "I don't like dependencies on 8 KB javascript files?"

Mostly the latter. I mean, what do you want it to insert?

The <script> part, and a <script src="swfobject.js"> and hoping the
user will figure out how to upload this to the server, his blog, or
wherever he is posting the HTML in which he dragged in the SWF file?

For new threads USE THIS:
(threading gets destroyed and the universe will collapse if you don't)