Talk:SWF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SWF article.
Article policies
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Open?

How can Wikipedia state that Flash is an open format given that Macromedia pulled all copies of its license for the open format (version 4) from its web site about a year after it declared it open; and replaced it with a newer license (like the one referred to from the official reference page mentioned by the wiki entry), that contains this clause:

"Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a nonexclusive license to use the Specification for the sole purposes of developing Products that output SWF."

In other words, only Macromedia can produce flash players.

Surely that isn't really open, in that case?

-- The sentence:

"SWF is an open format, and anyone can implement authoring software without having to pay royalties."

I had the same point earlier on and I deleted that sentence too. Weird how it's come back again? It's definitely not true, so why feed misinformation? I'm taking it out.

It's true now. Adobe released the SWF (v9) and FLV specs without license restrictions, as part of Open Screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.171.216 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open Format Topic

Way too much effort is spent proving how a SWF does not strictly conform to Open Format guidelines - nearly half the article. Perhaps the entire last half of the article can be shortened into a single paragraph that reads something like, "SWF is not, strictly speaking, an open format as indicated by the Flash Player License <insert link>.

Third party software can be produced to create SWF files using Macromedia's Flash File Format specifications but these specifications cannot be used to create a SWF interpreter." Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.168.52 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 November 2005

The question of formats is pretty important. i'm not an expert on this, but i would guess that explaining things in terms of copyright and/or software patents might help clarify things. The latter only apply in the USA, but many parts of the "free world" such as the EU have refused software patents, and i don't see how someone can copyright a format. In fact, i'm not quite sure how a format whose specification is published on the www can be non-open - unless the idea is that anybody who reads the file carries out an implied contract with Adobe and the terms of that contract include not writing an SWF interpreter? That probably explains the comment about reverse engineering - anyone is free to download N different SWF files and reverse engineer them to discover the content from the "secret" document. Or someone could look at the various tools for creating SWF files and work out how to invert them to read SWF files. But if s/he has clicked on the SWF specification document, then s/he has implicitly signed a document saying that s/he agrees not to write an SWF interpreter. Hard to believe that such a restriction could be legal, but i guess that's the legal world we live in for the moment. Boud 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
IANAL, but it seems to be a bit more complicated; one is not allowed to use information obtained by reading the document in making a swf player. Of course, if one has read the document, and then produced a swf player, Adobe would have a stronger case in a hypothetical lawsuit, if they can prove it. Take a look at Clean room design for more on that. But the act of reading the document of course is not, and can not be legally binding about producing a swf player in general - indeed it doens't seem to make sense to talk about "swf player" in general in this context at all. "a piece of software that is designed to conform to this specification" and "a piece of software that is designed to play these files that were reverse engineered" are here two completely distinct concepts. That's all only to my best understanding. Krum Stanoev (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SWF in Wikimedia projects

Why is the SWF file format not used in Wikimedia projects? --84.61.4.227 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SWF files under the GFDL?

Is it allowed to license SWF files under the GFDL? --88.76.240.148 11:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Linux on Intel"

When discussing platforms on which the Flash Player is available, the author mentions "Linux on Intel". However, this could be misread (for example, as "not on AMD"). I think the point the author is trying to make is that on only runs on i386, i586, i686 etc systems (x86), and not 64 bit, SPARC etc, but perhaps the meaning could be clarified by saying something like "Linux on x86 architectures". Tpg 2007 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open format?

Why is the SWF file format not a open format? --88.77.246.15 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] troll alert?

Hey, an IP has inserted some "downfalls" in this article, which I have, well, "converted" to a more intellectual way. Some points fell, because they were only nerd-reasons, but in all i would say that the important facts are mostly said in Macromedia Flash141.201.222.205 12:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An IP says what? 198.49.180.40 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most?

"Plugins to play SWF files in web browsers are available from Adobe for most desktop operating systems, including Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac, and Linux on the x86 architecture."

It sounds funny to say "most" here. Adobe's plugins are available for exactly 4 architectures: 32-bit MS Windows, Mac OS, Linux on 32-bit x86, and Solaris. But then, since the list is so short (we list 3/4 of it already!), why not just list them all? Then we don't need to discuss how many "most" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.62.177 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] swf does not mean 'shockwave' ?

I was told by an adobe/macromedia (at the time) employee .swf stands for 'small web format' and not shockwave, which makes sense : shockwave files are compiled from Director, NOT Flash. Shockwave player runs shockwave files, not Flash files. This has also been agreed by an Adobe trainer I had who stated this fact was also mentioned at an adobe conference he attended. I am of the opinion it is now a widespread misconception that swf = shock wave format/file'

I don't have sources for this but somebody must. One thing that is certainly true is that Flash does not compile shockwave nor are the files it compiles are not played by shockwave player as is implied by some of the flash related pages. Haute Pie 09:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: More info here http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2007/07/swf_stands_for.cfm and here http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2004/08/shockwave_vs_fl.cfm. It states swf was NEVER an acronym but Shockwave Flash does seem to be the popularly adopted meaning, whilst 'small web format' was coined later internally by staff at macro/adobe to avoid confusing with director files. I think this should be mentionedas a noteable fact in itself and to avoid confusion with director shockwave. Haute Pie 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something missing?

As I extremely hazily understand it, an .swf file is a very compact affair that doesn't do much more than call on another, typically very much larger file that contains the video. So the shockwave or flash or whatever it is video isn't actually in the .swf file. Am I wrong here? -- Hoary 09:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

you could embed it, but it is done like you said for flexibility 217.76.195.16 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not all .swf files are used to play video; in fact, most aren't. What you are referring to is video players used on sites like Youtube, which uses an .swf player to play .flv video. I honestly don't understand exactly how this works but .swf files are perfectly capable of containing their own animation without the use of .flv, but the result is "cartoony" due to the vector graphics. Thus video is implemented through another format. 66.189.65.178 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Vector graphics?

I have an .swf file here which contains a video which can be played by VLC. So how can, as the article claims, SWF be vector graphics then? Maikel (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is: what's the difference between SWF and FLV (Flash Video)? Maikel (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article is a hodgepdoge of interesting information, but still needs to be licked into shape. SWF apparently used to be vector graphics but has meanwhile gone multimedia (like FLV). Another question would be as to the differences between FLV and SWF. I'm not competent to do it myself, so please go wild, thanks. Maikel (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)