Posted by cwdjrxyz on 06/02/07 16:28

On Jun 2, 8:25 am, freemont <freem...@spammenotfreemontsoffice.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 09:17:39 +0000, rf writ:
>
> > OK, you convinced me to look at subject site.
>
> > Oh my.
> > You are correct. It's way too late to close the barn door. The horses are in
> > then next county by now pardner.
>
> > In just 60 seconds of perusal I spotted about 14 things that are simply
> > plain stupid. By modern standards that is.
>
> <http://i15.tinypic.com/61wgsaf.jpg> Opera 9.21 Mandriva Linux, Flash
> enabled
>
> I assume there's supposed to be something in the middle of the page. Oh,
> well, guess I can't use the site. :-\


I just checked with my Opera 9.21 with a Windows XP OS, and Flash 9.
If you mean the page you get after you click "enter" on the home page,
it works for me. The middle of the page has a flash player. It takes a
few moments to pop up as a black box. The control panel for the player
may not be seen until you move the cursor onto the black player area.
You must start the player with this control panel. The panel then
disappears after a few seconds again. This is a flash option that
hides the control panel unless it is being used. If the page still
does not work for you, perhaps the flash version you have is not
recent enough. Then it is possible that the Linux OS is having
problems with the code used. The site is just being started up. They
ask for feedback, so if you still are having a problem, you might want
to contact them.

The preliminary site demo was written by a commercial web development
company, for free I think, that is mentioned somewhere on the site. At
present the code is written in xhtml 1.0 transitional, but is being
served as just text/html. I have no idea if they intend to set the
server to serve true xhtml as application/xhtml+xml in the future. And
of course their code for the flash object does not validate. They use
the common ActiveX object for it that contains an embed path for most
browsers, other than IE, that do not support ActiveX. This seems to
work and is often used. However modern valid code can be used by using
Microsoft conditional comments to route to an ActiveX path if IE and
route to an ordinary object path if not IE rather than the embed path
used. The embed tag is what causes errors at the W3C html validator,
because embed is not and never has been an official W3C tag. It is a
relic from the browser war era. There are other "warts". I don't know
who will write the final code used on the finished site. They
apparently were in a hurry to get something up for a demo.

[Back to original message]