W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2001

RE: Validating HTML 4.01 Strict with an embedded Java Applet?

From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@asu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:03:43 -0700
To: "'carole@designs.com'" <carole@designs.com>, W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-id: <A021872EC2BDD411AB3600902746A055016048A0@mainex4.asu.edu>
Carole Gay quoted a student, in RE <http://civerson.com/>:

> The button links and the wavy water use the EMBED tag . . .

and:

> Bobby and CSS validate just fine, but not Strict HTML. 

Bobby [1] does not "validate just fine" -- check the output at [2].  You
need to do "user checks" -- e.g., "Make sure pages are still usable if
programmatic objects do not function. (11 instances)".  The page is _not_
usable if programmatic objects do not function.  There is no alternative
textual content for these objects, either.  Note that Bobby is not a very
useful accessibility verifier; it itself violates W3C Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines [3] and uses invalid HTML [4].

Ms. Iverson's page uses attributes like "align" which are not in the Strict
DTD.  Transitional would be more appropriate.  That won't help with the
<embed>s, though.  They just don't exist in real HTML.  To validate, she
will need to write a custom DTD which defines such elements.

If the designer wants to use HTML4 Strict, life will be much easier if she
uses <img> for these objects.  There is no reason that they need to be Java
or Flash.  JavaScript rollovers will achieve the button effect (and the page
will still work without scripting enabled), and an animated GIF could give
the waterfall effect.

1. <http://bobby.cast.org/bobby/>

2.
<http://bobby.cast.org/bobby?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fciverson.com%2F&output=Submit#
UserChecks0>

3. <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/>

4.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cast.org%2Fbobby%2F&doct
ype=Inline>

--

Thanasis Kinias
Information Dissemination Team, Information Technology
Arizona State University
Tempe, Ariz., U.S.A.

Qui nos rodunt confundantur
et cum iustis non scribantur.
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 14:03:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:58 GMT