|
|
Posted by cwdjrxyz on 10/22/07 21:42
On Oct 22, 3:45 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.com> wrote:
> K. wrote:
> > ...
> > <embed src="images/banner/banner41.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff"
> > ...
> > Unfortunately when I validate the page byhttp://validator.w3.org
> > my page gives me errors
>
> http://alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/
>
The above reference to the "flashsatay" reference is just one of the
older of several approaches used to avoid using embed and the
resulting hissy fit that the w3c validator has when it finds it. It
works, but requires an extra very small flash video and a bit of
action script in encoding the flash. I have not tried it using the
modern swf/flv flash videos. It likely will work for these, but I am
not certain. Among other things, use of the flv and container swf
file(both files are generated at the same time when you encode the
video) avoids the total frame limitation of old swf that self contains
the video. Thus it is suitable for large, high resolution videos as
well as small ones. This older method is just one I had in mind in my
response. A Google search will turn up several other methods. I find
it easier to just copy my code than to make an extra small swf file
for each video. I am also starting to use the object code as a php
include so that I do not even have to recopy it. One should of course
use the method that works best for you, so long as it works right and
hopefully is valid. Despite methods available to overcome the use of
embed for flash, wmv, Real rm, mov etc, use of embed still seems to be
more common than not. The fact that many of the media companies still
use it in code examples for their media probably has much to do with
the large continued use of embed for media. Unlike the w3c validator,
I won't have a hissy fit if I run into embed, although I had rather
see code that is valid at the w3c.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|