Does the next imply that dynamic TextFields won't be indexed?
We presently don't attach content from exterior assets which are loaded because of your Expensive files. In case your Expensive file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will individually index that resource, however it will not be regarded as area of the content inside your Expensive file.
Does the next imply that ONLY static TextFields is going to be indexed?
At this time around, content loaded dynamically from resource files isn't indexed. We’ve noted this feature request from the 3 website owners, look with this inside a not too distant future update.
From Enhanced Expensive indexing, Google Blog
Condensing the whole 45 minute video The Searchable SWF by Jim Corbett.
All text in TextFields such as the following all these rules is going to be Listed in the Virtual User (Google)
- Is Static or Dynamic -- not Input
- Around the displayList / a case around the stage -- not only in-RAM
- Any one of the 4 corners within the stage limitations -- not off-stage
- Visible -- not invisible, not alpha=
- Not in the bitmap Image -- images aren't OCR'd
- Not really a shape or graphic that appears like text -- shapes aren't OCR'd
- Openly accessible without logging-in -- not behind logins/authentication
- Not depending on exterior documents -- no exterior files loaded, no XML/SWF/TXT/etc
- Any font size -- not big enough are junk e-mail
- Typed in Expensive IDE or ActionScript produced, even components
It strictly doesn't state that this content of dynamic fields isn't indexed, setting this content from code although not from an exterior source appears to not be excluded with this text. But as this is not really a usual scenario it doesn't matter much.
This can be a squirrely kind of question, for any couple of reasons:
- Text fields could be "dynamic" without depending on "exterior assets,"
- The publish is six several weeks old, and
- The Expensive search-player project is underactive development.
So it would be nearly impossible to find a good answer from anybody who is not whether Google or Adobe engineer focusing on the search-player project, as well as then, will still be a somewhat complicated one, with respect to the implementation. Therefore the most secure and many reliable answer, at this time anyway, is most likely Maybe -- however i wouldn't always rely on it, yet.
Still, nevertheless, the whole reason for the search-player project would be to solve exactly this type of problem, so that can be a answer may not always be yes today (which it may be, only we do not know know without a doubt), it'll certainly edge nearer to yes as time passes.
One factor that you can do now's watch this video by which Jim Corbett (in the Expensive-player team and who's been dealing with Google directly) describes all of this stuff within just as much detail as you are prone to get from anybody today. (At about 19 minutes in, he live-demos the virtual-user indexing/text-area stuff at the office, too.) It will provide you with a pretty obvious picture of products because they stand now, where they are headed, the things that work and what does not, etc., to help you weigh the choices and determine for the project. Best of luck!