Validation and Flash

Hi all,
I am trying to validate my page which has flash file in it...
But it wont validate !
What can I do ?

http://www.marsoul.com/xyz/index.html

Regards

__________________

Designing For Communicating

Website : http://www.datisdesign.com
Weblog : http://blog.datisdesign.com

It depends somewhat on the page code used to display your flash, but nonetheless the workarounds are easy. If you validate your code through the W3C validation, there should be a link in your errors list that directs you to a really nice method for helping validate your flash.

Here's the link if it hasn't shown up for you: Flash Satay Method.

If you have a <noscript> tag in flash source (usually due to Active Content workarounds), you'll need to delete it and its close tag if your trying to validate for XHTML Strict 1.0. Other than that, the Satay method works for all doctypes...

Good luck,
The Lion.

TheLion, I would agree the Flash Satay Method is a good one. But personally I'd say swfobject is the better one to go for. Plus it will fix ActiveX 'required click' issues with IE7.

What's the difference between the two? Is it just the Active X? I actually beat it using a fix with a .gif image... But I'm curious.

I think the main difference is swfobject utilises javascript to embed the flash at runtime. The Satay method uses the <object> markup to 'embed' the flash in the HTML.

I guess besides that, yes they are very similar, apart from the Active X. Like I say, it's just a personal preference of mine to use SWFObject instead.

Actually there is one ultimate difference in the way they serve their 'alternate content'. Since SWFObject is a javascript function, alternate content is shown when the user has javascript disabled. With the Satay method, alternate content is viewable when the user does not have the flash plugin (or the correct plugin) installed.

Good to know... Thanks.

No, you are definitely right. I tested and compared the two, and I'll tell you that the "swfobject" is superior in every way.

The <object> tag, as well as the <noscript> tag needed in Active X Content workarounds, gets a little funky when validating for XHTML Strict 1.0. It passes fine in the 'Transitional's', but we're talking real standards here . Once I broke from how I'd had my test animation set up in my original scripting to validate for 'Strict 1.0', it was hard to get things right again. But the "swfobject" method made it easy and was a total breeze to work with.

Note:

There is one little issue. If your animation calls in other animations, you'll need to set a new variable to replace the 'embed' or 'base' variables of your previous scripting. This can be done by adding this to the javascript:

so.addParam ("base", http://www.yoursite.com/path_to_movies/);

And that'll do it.

I would recommend anyone to go with this method and use the 'Express Install' inclusion, just to be on the safe side. This is the only way I think I'm ever going to go about validating my flash from now on.

Thanks so much man.
The Lion.

instead of swf object try UFO.

Unobtrusive Flash Objects (UFO)

http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/ufo/

i use ufo on all my projects and clients websites.

__________________
etoxin is a sydney web flash designer - etoxin.net

What's the basic difference? And why would you recommend it as better?

swfobject and ufo use the swap and replace which can be used when you want to do seo on your flash.

Rules: only put what is in your flash(eg. text) in the swapped content. otherwise its seen as blackhat seo and you will be punished. if you pump the alternate content with keywords it will eventually be black listed.

__________________
etoxin is a sydney web flash designer - etoxin.net

goto the website and check it out the features. i like it cause its "stealthy"

and use less code to embed. it supports transparency. yeah

__________________
etoxin is a sydney web flash designer - etoxin.net

Yeah, I just read it; I'm still on the fence, though.

The 'swfobject' supports transparency, too (if that were the only buy). You just have to set the 'wmode' to "transparent" and you're good-to-go.

Also, I might have gleaned past it, but I didn't see a direct comparison being talked about between 'swfobject' and 'UFO'. The closest I saw was the comments made about wanting to make flash content available to all users despite small validity quirks.

I kind of agree with this, but I don't know how much longevity the position has. Browsers will always support JavaScript. It's up to the user to turn it 'on' or 'off'. In this way, flash pages are fully accessible as long as users understand that they need to turn 'on' JavaScripting if they're not seeing the flash (and there's your appropriate content swap use, which satifies the post above regarding 'blackhat').

At some point, I doubt many will have need to turn 'on' or 'off' JavaScript, as the practice is already dwindling away due to browser defaults being set to 'on' in all cases. Although I do believe that his comments about a nice server-side include would really make things easier, I kind of look at it like the deprecated 'target' attribute: If a client wants to open up a browser in a new window, they will.

I'll need a little more convincing. But I am open to it.

UFO doesn't support transparency ?

__________________

Designing For Communicating

Website : http://www.datisdesign.com
Weblog : http://blog.datisdesign.com

Previous post
UFO handles transparency. I think just about everything does...

aso 186
Do you know if there is any way I can rework the 'so.write ("flashcontent")' so that it can be used with a 'class' instead of an 'id'?

That would be killer man...

Sorry, I'm no Javascript tecchie !

Try posting a new topic in the Javascript section, someone might be able to help

it supports transparency its wmode like in swfobject. i like ufo cause its compact and neat. very neat. like three lines. and where the flash is is basically a div and the a id. no script where the flash is. its killer. Use it once and i swear you will be hooked. the developers also left the code in full so every person can develop the ufo to their needs. and the best point is it has a cool name!!!

__________________
etoxin is a sydney web flash designer - etoxin.net

I'm still not sure that's much different from the 'swfobject'. I need to know more about it, and the UFO info and articles I'm coming across really don't do it for me. I'm thinking it's a toss-up.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the topic?

The only reason I've used swfobject in past is it's popularity and documentation. I'd never heard of UFO, but from what etoxin describes, it sounds fairly promising

At the end of the day, so long as your HTML remains valid and accessible, and there is some form of 'alternate content' for the non flash / non javascript user, then you're doing fine