Comments on: HTML 5 Flash embedding and other validation errors

By: Subhasish ESPPL

Subhasish ESPPL — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:19:37 +0000

This is the perfect HTML5 flash embed code which will work in all browsers including IE but IE8 or higher.
Happy coding..
cheers

By: CICDC

CICDC — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:28:40 +0000

The embed tag doesn’t work in older versions of IE period, and html5 is also not supported by older browsers. Although I agree that we should all be using the latest and greatest, it’s not always the case. For example there are some embedded (not to be confused with our html tag) browsers that are stuck at version x and cannot be updated (lets assume that the flash works of course).
So to keep code clean and have it degrade nicely, you can display flash in a single object tag no matter what browser you use as follows (Note the type attribute, it’s what makes this not need the embed tag):

No more embed tag, only 2 urls (and only since IE doesn’t like having the “movie” param omitted) and xhtml and html5 compliant.
I hope this might be the piece of mind someone’s looking for.

By: The Quest for an Accessible Flash MP3 Player | Terrill Thompson

The Quest for an Accessible Flash MP3 Player | Terrill Thompson — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:32:22 +0000

[...] One lingering problem is that the code recommended in the niftyPlayer documentation fails HTML5 validation. HTML5 actually supports both and (for the first time ever in an HTML spec) . However, the classid and codebase attributes are obsolete, and probably a few other attributes as well. At this phase in my testing I wasn’t especially inclined to spend much time trying to figure out how to convert old code to valid, functional HTML5, although it looks like Bruce Lawson has gotten a jump start on this in his article HTML 5 Flash embedded and other validation errors. [...]

By: Adding video that validates in W3C | zibin

Adding video that validates in W3C | zibin — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:56:01 +0000

[...] might also want to read about Bruce “Awesome” Lawson’s getting video validated in HTML5. Tags: video, W3C ← 腾讯科技专访 Yay, HTML5 ContentEditable! [...]

By: Florent V.

Florent V. — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:25:04 +0000

Hi Bruce. I was wondering if there was any benefit to using the OBJECT element at all, here. What happens if you only use EMBED? Do browsers understand that allright? Are JAWS and NVDA, using either IE or Firefox, happy?

The advantage of the OBJECT element over EMBED used to be:
- can be used for lots of formats (plugin data, HTML pages, images, multimedia files to be played by the browser);
- allows rich alternative content (much better than the limited alt attribute of IMG and AREA elements);
- valid HTML4/XHTML1.

In HTML5, EMBED validity is not an issue, and versatile nature of OBJECT was shot down by the blessing of IFRAME, and the addition of VIDEO and AUDIO elements. (I’m not lamenting that, mind you. OBJECT was a great idea, but the spec was probably too vague for it to gain traction. The HTML world has moved on and now we have a specific element for each media category, let’s roll with that.) So the only remaining virtue of OBJECT over EMBED is (rich) alternative content. Since we’re using EMBED as the only alternative content anyway, this advantage is lost too. So why use OBJECT at all if, by chance, browser and screen reader support lets us drop it?

Anybody knows what the support for EMBED is these days?

By: Graham Irwin

Graham Irwin — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:09:34 +0000

Could have something to do with my not including the shim… Der!