Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation

Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Microsoft FrontPage Help

Message

markhawker -> Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 11:26:54)
Hi all! Just a quickie, I have some Flash elements in a web site that I am working on, and when I go to validate the page (www.w3.org) it does not recognise the Flash attributes. The DOCTYPE is HTML 4.01 Transitional. Any ideas? Mark

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 11:30:02)
Post the coding, and I'll get back to ya on this one Dan

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 11:36:22)

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="600" height="400">
  <param name="movie" value="images/main/intro.swf">
  <param name="quality" value="high">
  <param name="menu" value="false">
  <embed src="images/main/intro.swf" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="600" height="400"></embed>
</object>

This is generated by Dreamweaver when a Flash object is inserted.

Cheers, oh by the way, I've updated my site a bit, looks a lot better (I think!)

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 11:43:02)
I don't see anything wrong with it. Must be b'cos it uses the height and width attributes.... quote: oh by the way, I've updated my site a bit, looks a lot better (I think!) I know, and Lori approves, if she approves it's fine lol, only thing I would say is alter the shade fo grey on your main nav rollovers - it's too dark There's nothing wrong with the FLash embedding coding, it's just the fact that it still needs deprecated tags to work, unless you're prepared to implement CSS on it? Dan

dpf -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 11:47:57)
quote: There's nothing wrong with the FLash embedding coding, it's just the fact that it still needs deprecated tags to work, unless you're prepared to implement CSS on it? Im not up to speed on this, Dan. can you elaborate for me? thanks

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 11:59:47)
Ta Dan, I'm not sure what you mean by deprecating the tags? I might actually know what it is, there isn't really any need for the <param...> elements as they are also inside the <embed...> tag, and the height and width properties are in both <object> and <embed> tags. I'll try editing this and get back to you. Unless that is what you meant by deprecating?!

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:07:30)
Deprecated tags - Ones that are no longer needed due to replacement by way of other, more advanced coding, i.e height and width can be controlled by CSS You are right with the parameter tags, they have no need to be there, but I normally leave them in, just to be safe Dan

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:08:42)

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="600" height="400">
 <param name="menu" value="false">
 <param name="quality" value="high">
 <param name="src" value="images/main/intro.swf">
 <param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash">
 <param name="pluginspage" value="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
</object>

Yay, result! Looks like there's no need for an <embed> tag, only thing is though, will this affect the displaying of the site if the user has no Flash Player installed?

dpf -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:11:28)
Macromedia contends ( and I dont disbeleive) that 95% of users have it. however, the other question is which version? FLash MX will publish to ver 7 but many dont have that .. MX allows publishing to prior versions..which version did you publish to? Incidentally, all is saw was a jungle pic..no movement..am i mising something?

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:12:31)
It shouldn't affect it, but there's only one way to find out.....test it You still have the reference to Macromedia's flash player plugin so it SHOULD be fine (hence the should) Dan

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:15:30)
I publish to version 7, so I might publish to an earlier version with the images! I'm actually doing a site at www.gxsoccer.com so that's why there's a bit of confusion Dan!!

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:18:54)
Most users, AFAIK, have Flash player 4, and refuse to upgrade[:-] See, I told you coming from CF to OF would be good for you[:D]

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/15/2004 12:23:04)
I know, has been good joining a 'proper' forum! It's good to share things with other people. I'm currently also at Beige Tower, have you heard of it? It offers free hosting but you have to participate in the forums. Hopefully I'm getting a job soon so I can pay for hosting of my own!

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 7:21:50)
OK, so removing those tags causes the Flash object not to display in Netscape or Firefox! Help!? This means that Flash tags simply won't validate fully, which can't be right can it?

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 7:27:18)

Try this:

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0"  style="height: 400px; width: 600px;">
  <param name="movie" value="images/main/intro.swf">
  <param name="quality" value="high">
  <param name="menu" value="false">
  <embed src="images/main/intro.swf" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="height: 400px; width: 600px;"></embed>
</object>

Dan

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 13:41:04)
Hi, still no luck even with your code. Does now play in Netscape and FF too though, check out http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gxsoccer.com%2Findex.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29 for more information on the error.

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 14:08:53)
Yup, as I thought, embedding objects uses deprecated coding. Nothing you can do about it. Dan

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 17:13:02)
Bit of a biatch then, anyways cheers Dan!

jaybee -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 17:28:36)
Mark, that site is superb now! Well done. Very impressed.

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 17:40:10)
Cheers man, much appreciated! Great to hear from you, Im looking to update soon so it's more CSS based, just having to research a bit of CSS. Once again, thanks.

jaybee -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 17:42:11)
quote: Cheers man, much appreciated! Pssst! I wear skirts. hint.... hint....

Giomanach -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 17:43:28)
Psssssst Mark, JB = A Woman[:-]

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 17:48:11)
I was thrown with the skirts thing obviously...! Cheers for clarifying Dan [:D] I must apologise jaybee, 'man' was just meant as a slang term for mate because 'cheers woman' doesn't quite sound right!! I'll shut up now, thanks [:D]

jaybee -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 18:04:36)
At least you didn't use "Cheers bird" or worse... "thanks tart!" [:D]

markhawker -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 18:11:07)
I'd never say a thing like that! Sorry if you're offended now, I meant it in good spirit! At least I'll no for next time [;)]

jaybee -> RE: Macromedia Flash Objects and W3 Validation (6/17/2004 18:15:04)
ME! Offended! Takes a lot more than that. [:D]

Page: [1]

7.910156E-02