609917 - Flash does not always display when height and width parameters are not present

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 373273

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Rob Stoecklein]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C)

I'm entering this as a bug because it works as I would expect on other major browsers (IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera).

When writing HTML code to display a flash video, sometimes the "width" and "height" parameters are required to display the video and sometimes they are not. My feeling is that these parameters should always be optional.

The complete example is shown at the URL given in this report. Here is the summary:

When I create a flash object using simply "<object>", Firefox grabs default width and height parameters from the flash file itself and displays it as desired.

When I create a flash object using the line "<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash">", Firefox does NOT display the flash as expected.

There are certain combinations of parameters that cause the flash video to either display or not get displayed, but I have made my example as simple as possible. In most cases, leaving the width and height parameters off causes the video to NOT be displayed.

Of course this is not much of a problem when I'm building code, however we have built a system that allows "non-technical" people to build web pages. They would be better served if the width and height parameters were always optional.


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Navigate to http://www.teamhelper.net/flash.html
2.
3.
Actual Results:  
The first flash video on the test page displays properly, while the second flash video does not display.

Expected Results:  
We expected both flash videos to appear.

Comment 1

[j.j.]

In your first case you see the <embed>, not the <object>, I think.
For your second case we have a bug already.