flash swf
 

Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which validates to
w3c standards?
The short version offered by w3schools.com doesn't validate for me:
<object width="550" height="400">
<param name="movie" value="somefilename.swf">
<embed src="somefilename.swf" width="550" height="400">
</embed>
</object>

Thanks,
--
Abby

Re: flash swf
 

"abby" <beatty@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:1109677246.412894.52260@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which validates to
> w3c standards?

Not really. You can use this, if you like:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/, but the question is if it is
really worth all the trouble...

Anyway, have fun :-)
--

Rudy
http://www.rol.be
--
Toon mij een cynicus en ik toon u een teleurgestelde idealist.

> The short version offered by w3schools.com doesn't validate for me:
> <object width="550" height="400">
> <param name="movie" value="somefilename.swf">
> <embed src="somefilename.swf" width="550" height="400">
> </embed>
> </object>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Abby
>

Re: flash swf
 

WebMaster wrote:
> "abby" <beatty@muchomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109677246.412894.52260@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> > Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which
validates to
> > w3c standards?
>
> Not really. You can use this, if you like:
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/, but the question is
if it is
> really worth all the trouble...
>
> Anyway, have fun :-)

Yeah, reading that article was s-o-o much fun ...but it still doesn't
work ...I probably got lost in the verbal clutter :-)

--
A


> --
>
> Rudy
> http://www.rol.be
> --
> Toon mij een cynicus en ik toon u een teleurgestelde idealist.
>

Re: flash swf
 

abby wrote:
> WebMaster wrote:
>
>>"abby" <beatty@muchomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1109677246.412894.52260@o13g2000cwo.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>>Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which
>
> validates to
>
>>>w3c standards?
>>
>>Not really. You can use this, if you like:
>>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/, but the question is
>
> if it is
>
>>really worth all the trouble...
>>
>>Anyway, have fun :-)
>
>
> Yeah, reading that article was s-o-o much fun ...but it still doesn't
> work ...I probably got lost in the verbal clutter :-)
>
> --
> A
>
>
>
>>--
>>
>>Rudy
>>http://www.rol.be
>>--
>>Toon mij een cynicus en ik toon u een teleurgestelde idealist.
>>
>
>

It is a terrible article. Just look at the source of
www.subhuman.net/news/news.asp - it has Flash in it. The mark up
validates as XHTML trans.

Re: flash swf
 

SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:
>> WebMaster wrote:
>>>"abby" <beatty@muchomail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which
>>>> validates to w3c standards?
>>>
>>>Not really. You can use this, if you like:
>>>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/, but the question is
>>
>
>It is a terrible article.

In the sense of being rather badly written. Technically it's spot on
though.

>Just look at the source of
>www.subhuman.net/news/news.asp - it has Flash in it. The mark up
>validates as XHTML trans.

subhuman.net:
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
data="../animation/menu.swf" width="298" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="../animation/menu.swf" />
</object>

A List Apart:
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
data="movie.swf" width="400" height="300">
<param name="movie" value="movie.swf" />
</object>

Spot the difference?

The only time the satay part of the ALA articles is needed is when you
have a large Flash movie that you want to be streamed. For small,
non-streaming movies the above code, which the ALA article gives half
way, down works fine.

But in both cases the <object> element is missing any content. That's
forgivable on ALA where they're talking about hypothectical code and
where alternative content at the end of the article but is
unforgivable on a real web site. subhuman.net looks rather silly with
the top half of the right hand column being nothing but a blank space.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Re: flash swf
 

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> writing
in news:6i2b21p3c4ql48sdku953j1ru96v1ke6ak@4ax.com:

> SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:
>>> WebMaster wrote:
>>>>"abby" <beatty@muchomail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which validates
>>>>>to w3c standards?
>>>>
>>>>Not really. You can use this, if you like:
>>>>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/, but the question is
>>>
>>
>>It is a terrible article.
>
> In the sense of being rather badly written. Technically it's spot on
> though.
>
>>Just look at the source of
>>www.subhuman.net/news/news.asp - it has Flash in it. The mark up
>>validates as XHTML trans.
>
> subhuman.net:
><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
> data="../animation/menu.swf" width="298" height="100"> <param
> name="movie" value="../animation/menu.swf" /> </object>
>
> A List Apart:
><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="movie.swf"
> width="400" height="300"> <param name="movie" value="movie.swf" />
></object>
>
> Spot the difference?
>
> The only time the satay part of the ALA articles is needed is when you
> have a large Flash movie that you want to be streamed. For small,
> non-streaming movies the above code, which the ALA article gives half
> way, down works fine.
>
> But in both cases the <object> element is missing any content. That's
> forgivable on ALA where they're talking about hypothectical code and
> where alternative content at the end of the article but is
> unforgivable on a real web site. subhuman.net looks rather silly with
> the top half of the right hand column being nothing but a blank space.
>
> Steve
>

Subhuman works fine for IE and Opera, but FF has the blank area on my
system.

I get around that by putting a static image, eg:
<object ...>
<img>
</object>

Of course that only works if the flash isn't interactive.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: flash swf
 

Adrienne wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Steve Pugh <steve@pugh.net> writing
> in news:6i2b21p3c4ql48sdku953j1ru96v1ke6ak@4ax.com:
>
>
>>SpaceGirl <NOtheSpaceGIrlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>WebMaster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"abby" <beatty@muchomail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which validates
>>>>>>to w3c standards?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not really. You can use this, if you like:
>>>>>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/, but the question is
>>>>
>>>It is a terrible article.
>>
>>In the sense of being rather badly written. Technically it's spot on
>>though.
>>
>>
>>>Just look at the source of
>>>www.subhuman.net/news/news.asp - it has Flash in it. The mark up
>>>validates as XHTML trans.
>>
>>subhuman.net:
>><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
>>data="../animation/menu.swf" width="298" height="100"> <param
>>name="movie" value="../animation/menu.swf" /> </object>
>>
>>A List Apart:
>><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="movie.swf"
>>width="400" height="300"> <param name="movie" value="movie.swf" />
>></object>
>>
>>Spot the difference?
>>
>>The only time the satay part of the ALA articles is needed is when you
>>have a large Flash movie that you want to be streamed. For small,
>>non-streaming movies the above code, which the ALA article gives half
>>way, down works fine.
>>
>>But in both cases the <object> element is missing any content. That's
>>forgivable on ALA where they're talking about hypothectical code and
>>where alternative content at the end of the article but is
>>unforgivable on a real web site. subhuman.net looks rather silly with
>>the top half of the right hand column being nothing but a blank space.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>
> Subhuman works fine for IE and Opera, but FF has the blank area on my
> system.
>
> I get around that by putting a static image, eg:
> <object ...>
> <img>
> </object>
>
> Of course that only works if the flash isn't interactive.
>

Yep. Which is why the site is a preview site. The "full fat" version
goes live later this month.

Re: flash swf
 

abby wrote:
> Is there a code markup to have a flash swf on a page which validates
to
> w3c standards?

Using embed works EVERYHWERE.

Complying to w3c, in reguards to flash doesn't. (Even the allspice work
around has limitations, and fails.)

Which is more important? That you are compliant, or that it works?

You decide.


--
-=tn=-