W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Validating pages that include Flash

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:23:45 +0100 (BST)
To: Andrew Robinson <andrew@bml.co.uk>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0404130811380.894@hugin.webthing.com>

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Andrew Robinson wrote:

> I've been fighting the validator for about 6 hours now, and frankly, I'm
> about to give up.

You already have Hixie's direct answer, so this is a couple of comments.

> 1) Exclude all NS/Mozilla users from my flash content just to please the
> validator (which will happen over my dead body)

Would be fair comment if there were no workaround.

> 2) Write a custom DTD that allows for the Embed tag (which appears to be
> a] next to impossible for a beginner and b] seems to miss the point of
> validating to W3C standards)

That doesn't miss the point.  As you noted in (1), validation is just a
tool.  Validating to a custom DTD will catch stupid typos, brainfarts and
the like, which is in practical terms probably its most useful purpose.

> 3) Hide the Embed in a javascript js write (which is a] cheating and b]
> something I can't do because the high level of accessibility I'm aiming
> for precludes javascript)

That seems nonsensical.  If you're concerned about accessibility (as of
course you should be), then an alternative to your flash is vastly more
important than a non-script solution.  A solution might, for example,
put your non-flash content inside <noscript>.

OTOH a JS write is indeed over-complicated for the task at hand.

> 4) Convince the W3C

As you say, unlikely.

And don't confuse the people who set the standards with the people who
provide validators to test against them.  We're bound by the standards
too, and if we were to declare unilaterally that something was valid,
the validator would be failing in its job.

Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 03:24:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:40 UTC