W3C validation and <embed>

  Analyst02 07:52 21 Feb 2005

Morning ladies 'n' gents.

Have gotten up early as this has been on my mind allnight.

not got a URL yet so unable to publish site for you but i hope you can still help.

have just put in some flash buttons (macromedia)on my webpage. All work ok but when run through W3C validator i get a load of non compliant errors.

Line 83, column 17: there is no attribute "SRC"

embed src="button1.swf" width="105" height="21" bgcolor="" quality="high"

Line 83, column 37: there is no attribute "WIDTH"

embed src="button1.swf" width="105" height="21" bgcolor="" quality="high"

Line 83, column 50: there is no attribute "HEIGHT"

embed src="button1.swf" width="105" height="21" bgcolor="" quality="high"> /embed>

Line 83, column 63: there is no attribute "BGCOLOR"

...bed src="button1.swf" width="105" height="21" bgcolor="" quality="high"> /embed>

Line 83, column 74: there is no attribute "QUALITY"

...width="105" height="21" bgcolor="" quality="high"> /embed>

Line 83, column 80: element "EMBED" undefined

...height="21" bgcolor="" quality="high"> /embed>

You have used the element named above in your document, but the document type you are using does not define an element of that name. This error is often caused by incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Frameset" document type to get the " frameset>" element), or by using vendor proprietary extensions such as " spacer>" or " marquee>" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).

Line 91, column 58: there is no attribute "PLUGINSPAGE"

...ton5.swf" quality="high" pluginspage="click here

Line 91, column 151: there is no attribute "TYPE"

...P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="1

Line 91, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...kwave-flash" width="105" height="21" > /embed>

Line 99, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...kwave-flash" width="105" height="21" > /embed>

Line 107, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...kwave-flash" width="105" height="21" > /embed>

Line 114, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...kwave-flash" width="105" height="21" > /embed>

Line 128, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...type="application/x-shockwave-flash" > /embed>

Line 134, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...type="application/x-shockwave-flash" > /embed>

Line 140, column 207: element "EMBED" undefined

...type="application/x-shockwave-flash" > /embed>


so bar a few others issues the embed> tag obviously isnt valid HTML.. any ideas what i can use in its place?

i shall trawl through the archives in the hope of finding something.

thanks in advance.

  LeadingMNMs 11:12 21 Feb 2005

I think that your supposed to use the OBJECT tag instead, although I'm not sure how it will work with flash. I think IE supports some types and not others.

Have a look here click here

  Analyst02 13:54 21 Feb 2005

thanks for that however as you see in this extract the generated errors are situated between the 'OBJECT' elements already.

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="click here" width="105" height="21" title="lineage">
<param name="BGCOLOR" value="">
<param name="movie" value="button6.swf">
<param name="quality" value="high">
<embed src="button6.swf" quality="high" pluginspage="click here" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="105" height="21" ></embed>

It looks as if i have found a work around click here

Question .. why are macromedia (whom i assuming are world leaders in there field) producing elements that they know arent W3 compliant?.. another topic for another day i think.

  Analyst02 14:01 21 Feb 2005

and i need to learn to spell .. there instead of their..!!!!

  Taran 14:14 21 Feb 2005

Standards compliance is a bane of web design, up to a point.

Basically the standards are moving faster than the software is in some cases, and until comparatively recently not many people bothered to test their sites in other browsers, let alone take accessibility issues into account.

Accessible Flash is a small-scale nightmare. If all you want are a few buttons either choose something static or put up with your errors.

The alternative takes more work than the end result can possibly be worth.

  Analyst02 16:10 21 Feb 2005

just like to say ..Going off the point of my original thread abit taran.

Some of the markup guidelines from W3C go back 5 years or more, I certainly dont think in the case of the EMBED element, That the standards are out stripping the software, more the otherway around. I don't know why the W3C never included the EMBED element in any HTML or XHTML specification, even though skrillions of professionals used that tag on millions of websites.
I wish they would overcome whatever theoretical problems they have with the EMBED tag and simply go ahead and put it into the specs, in the same way they allowed, say bgcolor in the HTML and XHTML Transitional specs.

I agree with you that until fairly recently people didnt bother to validate their work but just a coursary glance around the WWW will tell you that is changing very rapidly and people are now wanting to do just that. But W3C dont seem to be listening to the very people they are tryng to attract, as ... lets say ... Adobe would listen to their customers.

The W3C's failure to make that simple compromise with what is now a widely accepted practice might lead some to dismiss the organization and its work.

  Analyst02 16:16 21 Feb 2005

after looking at the work around.. which some intelligent gent came up with in middle of last year, and indeed W3C point to themelves as an 'option' im going to stick with the errors .. for now anyway .. many thanks for the help.

  Taran 10:53 22 Feb 2005

Just t clarify a point, I dod not mean to appear as though I was suggesting that compliance/standards testing should be avoided.

Quite the reverse.

The standards v software issues are many and varied.

CSS1 is reasonably well supported by most current browsers. CSS2 is very poorly supported and CSS3 is completely out of the question, yet CSS2 has been the given standard for quite some time and CSS3 is imminent.

This is the kind of thing I was meaning with regard to the standards v software issues.

JavaScript, DHTML, Flash and CSS have been on the go for long enough now, yet ALL of the mainstream browsers on every operating system will fall over at some point when using them, and each web authoring program sometimes has its own proprietary way of including such elements. In the case of CSS1 we can go way back to the mid-nineties, yet no single web browser currently available almost ten years later can fully support it - go figure.

Who'd be a web designer ?

Anyway, I did not mean to suggest out of hand that such errors should be ignored completely for no good reason - simply that, as you have found for yourself, the workaround, such as it is, is arguably more of an issue than the original problem(s).

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Nokia 8 vs Galaxy S8

Best new design books 2017: From vintage infographics to the the psychology of type

iMac 21.5-inch (2017) review

Nokia 8 : design, caractéristiques techniques, date de sortie