Not sure why SWFObject 2 prevents you from doing something similar? I would think that you would have the SWFObject.js reference in your header. And then each call that required SWFObject would be responsible for placement/parameter initialization etc.?
Vincent On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Jim Berkey <[email protected]> wrote: > One example of a site I do that both fits the swfobject list, and cannot > easily be standards compliant . . . I author a site with 950+ pages, each > made up of multiple php files . . . header.php, leftMenu.php, > contentOne.php, etc. > I cannot use swfobject 2, which is xhtml strict compliant, but must use > 1.5, which I don't believe is. With 1.5, I can put one reference to the > swfobject.js file in the header.php file. Then I can add, change and remove > swf files from any page, by just adding the embed code in the spot where it > should appear. If I had used swfobject 2, I would need to put the header > embed code from many diverse swfs, each appearing on only one or a few > pages, in the header.php file, loaded into every page, whether or not the > actual swf was to appear in that page. And I'd have a header.php file with a > ton of different embed statements, for each instance in their respective > pages. Very bad code management imho. > > jimbo > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Vincent Polite < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Steve, >> >> It's not a bad list. I'll ponder it a bit. I still have major problems >> with the notion of standards compliance in a world where it seems like no >> one is actually following the standards. ;) Don't get me started on >> x-platform css... :X >> >> :) >> >> Vincent >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> This seems to cover the reasons nicely: >>> >>> >>> http://www.nolagraphics.com/news/2007/10/25/why-are-coding-standards-w3c-important-to-me-as-a-business-owner/ >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> On Jun 8, 10:31 am, Vincent Polite <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > This seemed like an appropriate thread to hijack, but I do have a >>> question >>> > for those who may be more in the know about this than I am.... >>> > >>> > Why is it that we care whether or not a web page is standards >>> compliant? If >>> > the various web browser manufacturers that make up the majority of our >>> > userbase aren't strictly compliant with a particular web standard... >>> what >>> > good does it do our web pages to have every little detail nuanced up >>> for a >>> > particular doctype/standard? >>> > >>> > Just curious; it's a question that has bothered me for quite some time. >>> > >>> > Vincent >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > I meant XHTML. >>> > >>> > > On Jun 7, 7:46 pm, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > Hi All, >>> > >>> > > > FYI... >>> > >>> > > > Enhance 1.2 is now W3C XHTML 1.0 standards compliant. >>> > >>> > > > Steve >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SWFObject" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
