Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.alexpap.com&charset=%28detect+automaticall
y%29&doctype=HTML5&group=0
Original comment by dan....@gmail.com
on 26 Jul 2011 at 1:20
We are investigating HTML5 validation as part of our upcoming SWFObject 2.3
release, but we are bound by Internet Explorer's limitations, and cannot make
any promises.
Original comment by platelu...@gmail.com
on 26 Jul 2011 at 8:37
I have looked but haven't found... do you know of another solution for
providing alternative content that might be w3c valid?
Thanks btw, works great as it is - good luck with IE(gagh!)
Original comment by dan....@gmail.com
on 26 Jul 2011 at 8:40
If you're using static publishing, you can try the simplified double-object
syntax discussed here:
http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/issues/detail?id=414#c3
It validates with HTML5 because the IE object is hidden via conditional
comments.
Original comment by platelu...@gmail.com
on 26 Jul 2011 at 8:53
The current SWFObject static syntax will fail HTML5 validation due to the
inclusion of the classid attribute and exclusion of the data attribute in the
<object> created for IE.
The simplified double-object syntax fixes this problem:
<!--[if IE]>
<object id='mySWF' classid='clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000'
width='550px'
height='400px'>
<param name='movie' value='file.swf'>
<![endif]-->
<!--[if !IE]>-->
<object id='mySWF' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' data='file.swf'
width='550px'
height='400px'>
<!--<![endif]-->
<param name='allowfullscreen' value='true'>
<param name='allowscriptaccess' value='sameDomain'>
<p>Fallback HTML</p>
</object>
The only drawback here is that Internet Explorer 8 and lower will display an
errant <![endif]--> comment on the page if swfobject.registerObject is used and
the required version of Flash Player is not available. This does errant
<![endif]--> does not appear in IE 9, so I believe it's a bug in IE's
conditional comment system.
Original comment by platelu...@gmail.com
on 20 Oct 2011 at 4:42
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dan....@gmail.com
on 26 Jul 2011 at 1:19