btw, this is in response to Jim's post. VP
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Vincent Polite <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
