I thoroughly agree with David here. Web standards are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. The way I see it, the point of web standards is to a) separate form from content and both from behaviour; b) make all content equally accessible to the widest possible audience; c) provide a predictable, reliable model that we can all work with. It seems to me that trying to use 'web standards techniques' for embedding Flash content fails at least two of these aims, and isn't worth pursuing just so that some software program will 'validate' your code. If you've done everything else pretty close to right, then the only validation you really need is that your intended audience sees everything they need to see. After all, Flash content isn't that accessible to begin with - insisting on embedding it with strictly valid code is a bit like putting handles on an elephant to make it easier to carry across a swollen river ...
Cheers, Kevin Futter On 24/9/04 8:53 AM, "David McKinnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reiterating Ben's comments and Zeldman's summary of the problems with the > Satay method in Designing With Web Standards, that's exactly the problem > with the Satay--sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. On some > browsers, on some machines, sometimes. I think Zeldman's comment is how many > people do you want to choose to alienate? > This may sound like heresy in this list, but the goal of using Web standards > is not to get your site to validate. (Wait, put down that pitchfork!) The > way I see it people, is that it's all about people. The goal is to make it > better for people. Better for viewers, who don't get things looking like > krud because they choose the 'wrong' browser or platform. Better for people > with special needs. Better for people who build and maintain the site and > better for the people who will redesign the site when it comes to that. > Then, when the forces of good rise up to crush the forces of tyranny all > people will live in... > > Er... sorry, got a bit carried away there... > Anyway it may just be better to use the flash default code because it works > even if it doesn't validate. > No, not the torch! Arrgh! > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mike Foskett > Sent: Friday, 24 September 2004 12:08 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] Embedding Flash > > Just checked it in: > > PC: Opera v7, Firefox v1, IE v6. > Mac: Safari v1, firefox v1, Netscape v7, IE v5.2 > > All displayed just fine. > I'd remind you to replace some of the alt tags though (intro1.jpg etc). > And perhaps consider adding "house doctor" to the initial h1. > > mike 2k:)2 > > <marquee><blink> > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk > </marquee></blink> > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Fenn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 September 2004 11:58 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] Embedding Flash > > > Mark wrote: >> Unless there is a major reason to be XHTML then I normally use HTML >> 4.01 - even if only on the pages with flash included. > > That's what I'm going to do now :-( > > Thanks for the help everyone! > > All the best, > > -- > Ian > > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge > To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > www.mimesweeper.com > ********************************************************************** > > > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge > To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > > > > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ > Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge > To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
