- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:22:47 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Information - Abyss <Info@Abyss.ws>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Information - Abyss wrote: > I am not sure if this is a bug or not in the validator It's not. > <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="Hello.swf">" > width="680px" height="250px"> There is formally nothing wrong with this. Anything after the first ">" is content in the <object> element, which has a fairly permissive content model. The interpretation is not what was meant, but that's a different issue. > (the item was passed into the xhtml via a value and not handcoded) That doesn't affect validation. I suppose you explained this to describe the background of the mistake. A mistake it is, but not a reportable markup error. > you will notice an extra > in the data field...this caused an error in > the way it was displayed but the page still validated There is no extra ">" in the data attribute value, since that value is terminated by a quotation mark. The effect in practice is that the content of the <object> element is ignored by any browser that implements the embedding suggested by that element (since its content is by definition just fallback content for situation where the embedding does not take place), but naturally the width and the height of the object presentation area will be defaulted, since the element has no width and height attributes. This might mean using a width and height of zero - a common though clueless browser default. Perhaps the real page has something slightly different, but we cannot tell: you did not provide a URL. Note that if you remove the two characters "> at the end of the first line, making width="680px" height="250px" attributes of the <object> element, as you probably meant, these attributes are valid but definitely incorrect. That is, they comply with the syntax given in the Document Type Definition, but they violate the requirements posed in the normative prose of HTML specifications. Use width="680" height="250" instead. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 10:22:56 UTC