Flash and XHTML 4.1 validation

[Joose]

Just been bashing my brains out over this, wondered if anyone on here knows.

Been redoing my website (as it is cock. I had just got flash when i did it, and went off on one with swoopy badly animated gubbins), and have a animated logo type thing done in flash.

Now, in an attempt to make myself look more "pro" than i really am, i tried to get it to validate using the wc3 validation service and it threw a complaint at the embed src bit. But if i take that out, it isnt going to show the logo in Firefox, or netscape, i believe. Which would be bad.

Anyone know a workaround for this, or should i stop being a ponce and put up with only my css validaing?

[Stoat]

Google suggests that you can't, since EMBED tags are being depreciated. But in the wholeness of things it doesn't really matter.

The validation thing is apparently "only to encourage making sites text-readable" anyway, according to this guy I met in the pub*.

*may not be true

[Joose]

meh, i shant bother then.

It was done on a whim really. My train of thoughts went thusly:

pages that validate are apparently (according to something i read ages ago) more easily read by those bizzarre things blind people use to browse teh interweb.

therefore, if my site validates, its more "accessable"

my local council is on a big "accessability" bender at the moment

theres a possibility of me getting contract work with the council

therefore, if my site is blind person friendly, it will impress the council and therefore i am more likely to get the contract.


Of course, looking at this logic, it all revolves around someone in the council understanding what "HTML 4.1 validated" means.

hmm.

[Woo Elephant Yeah]

Arf!

I am a pwofeshunal web monkey http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... punk.co.uk

/above statement may contain large traces of self sarcasm

[Joose]

arf!


ive made do with a statement saying "sites are designed with accsessability in mind".

Stricktly speaking, this is true.