[WSG] The correct way of placing a swf file into a XHTML webpage
Hello, I am currently working on a site that has a small flash file for decorative purposes. I inherited the site and want to make it web standards compliant. The problem: the XHTML code in the site is using the embed tag for the flash. Is there a way to place swf files into a XHTML webpage that will allow the page to validate? (I believe the embed tag has been deprecated.) Any links to references would be appreciated. Thank you, Dory Ptak *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] The correct way of placing a swf file into a XHTML webpage
Thank you-- It looks like we are going with the SWFObject 2.0 static method. The http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay article was also helpful in that it explained the process. Do you know if the alternative content can be picked up by a text reader? Thank you, Dory On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Melissa Forrest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: use javascript to insert the flash, which will also auto activate the flash in IE and do some flash player detection something like swfobject would do the trick http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/ On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Mahendran Venkatesan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dory, You can use 'object' tag for embedding flash files. Refer this link: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay Thanks! Venkatesan M On 3/25/08, Dory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am currently working on a site that has a small flash file for decorative purposes. I inherited the site and want to make it web standards compliant. The problem: the XHTML code in the site is using the embed tag for the flash. Is there a way to place swf files into a XHTML webpage that will allow the page to validate? (I believe the embed tag has been deprecated.) Any links to references would be appreciated. Thank you, Dory Ptak *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] transitional vs. strict
I have never seen the differences between the two doc types spelled out like this. When I was learning CSS our instructor taught us to use transitional-- less problems she said. I guess I fell into the belief that strict was for those who knew CSS forward and backward That strict was unobtainable for those of us who still refer to a css handbook at times and have a sense of dread with a new IE browser release. There are times when getting a page to work on all browsers and validate can be daunting enough just in transitional... Is this really all the difference between the two doctypes? If I print this out and place it beside the CSS handbook could I possibly obtain Strict validation? Thank you for posting this, Dory On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:36 PM, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pages that validate as strict are superior to transitional because Because the strict doctype helps us follow one of the principles of best practice - to remove all presentation from markup. To do this fully, we should aim to remove all presentational elements and attributes from our markup. How does the strict doctype help this? Here are some examples... Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ELEMENTS are allowed: - u - s and strike - center - font - basefont Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. Using the Transitional doctype, the following presentational ATTRIBUTES are allowed: - background and background-color attributes for body element. - align attribute on div, form, paragraph (p), and heading (h1...h6) elements - align, noshade, size, and width attributes on hr element - align, border, vspace, and hspace attributes on img and object elements - align attribute on legend and caption elements - align and background-color on table element - nowrap, bgcolor, width, height on td and th elements - bgcolor attribute on tr element - clear attribute on br element Using the strict doctype these are not allowed - they are invalid. With the transitional doctype inline elements and character strings are allowed in: - body - blockquote - form - noscript - Noframes Using the strict doctype these are not allowed. They are invalid. Why is it important to remove presentational elements and attributes from markup? Because presentational elements and attributes add weight to the page and make it harder for you to manage, change the presentation of the page at a later date. Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09)
I agree... keep sending the links! It is up to us as to what we chose to read or not. Dory On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:06 AM, agerasimc...@unioncentral.com wrote: Russ, Even though I have a lot of experience with GUI development and standards, and have my own opinions on things, I am reading your links everytime you send them out. Any article matters. Please, keep sending those. Thanks! Anya V. Gerasimchuk Web Designer, IT - Web Shared Services UNIFI Information Technology agerasimc...@unioncentral.com (513) 595 -2391 *Russ Weakley r...@maxdesign.com.au* Sent by: li...@webstandardsgroup.org 12/22/2009 09:01 AM Please respond to wsg@webstandardsgroup.org To wsg@webstandardsgroup.org cc Subject Re: [WSG] [WSG Announce] Some links for light reading (22/12/09) Hi Rimantas Why did I post this link? Because the article has an interesting take on HTML5. This does mean that I agree or disagree with the article. I hoped that the article would lead to discussion and debate. I had also hoped that any discussion or debate would be conducted in a respectful manor (regardless of how strongly one feels that the other party is incorrect) and that anyone involved in the discussion would present their arguments rationally and calmly without sinking to personal attacks on other web standards group members (yes, the person who wrote the article is a member of this group). Ahhh... I give up... there is no hope. Russ On 22/12/2009, at 10:46 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Will HTML5 make the Web even more invalid? http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/html5-make-web-more-invalid/ Can you provide any reason why you keep posting links to this site? Yes the blog _seems_ to be about web standards, but the posts are just speculation of poor quality and based on the lack of information, misunderstanding and false assumptions. Sure, the guy has financial interest of keeping xhtml afloat, so he may see the HTML5 as a threat, but that's not a good enough reason to spout nonsense. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Dory Ptak Ptak Web Development www.ptakwebdevelopment.com (925) 292-1054 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
