Well.. i found something like this...

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0">
<param name="movie" value="flash.swf">
<!--[if !IE]> <-->
<object data="flash.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">
<param name="pluginurl" value="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">
<img src="nieflash.gif" alt="Fajny filmik">
</object>
<!--> <![endif]-->
</object>

And I must say it works... almost... Well, on Apache + PHP there are no problems. In clean html there are also no problems. But setting this on an IIS Server causes an internal error - nested tags (or something like this as far as I remember).

Maybe anyone has a solution on this one? :)

Poofeq: Solution- Don't use IIS :P

Nifkin: What about people who want to see flash content who have javascript disabled? 2 dependencies for 1 thing can't be the best : )

Also, using Javascript to inject invalid code into a document because using the code normally makes it invalid defeats the purpose of standards and validation. Like how some people use Javascript to create target attributes on links because using the attribute normally causes the page not to validate -shrugs-

Scott -

Careful! There are those that would brand you a heretic for a statement like that! ;)

Levity aside, the w3c set the standard - the bar to reach. Can everyone reach it? I certainly fall short of the ideals in certain ways, but I keep striving. To say the standards are wrong because they push us to be better than we are is like saying childbirth is wrong because I can't do it as a man.

That's my 2 cents. :^{>

Nifkin: What about people who want to see flash content who have javascript disabled?

Yes, both of these users will see nothing. They will then go back to their babylon 5 message board and bitch about it there and about how nobody supports NN4.7 any more either.

In more significant (and directly related) news (pulled straight from ten safe frogs' blog): FlashObject will get you around that pesky EOLAS lawsuit revision to IE/PC that's apparently being rolled into the April IE update.

FlashObject does not work with XHTML 1.1.

The point is I think, that webpages containing any flash objects are classified as wrong. I just don't get it why.

It's an obvious validation problem, yet the W3C doesn't boher to do something with it.

I believe (though I'm not certain, I haven't worked with flash in a while), that the classid and codebase are pointers to tell a browser where to go to get the appropriate plugin.

hifkin: Alpha nerds?

poofeq said:
"The code that you've given probably won't work under Firefox (mozilla)... or am I
wrong? :D"

Yeah wrong ;) It works fine in Firefox. I use Firefox! IE sucks.

To nifkin
By plug in do you mean the Flash Player? The Flash Player comes by default nowdays and you could still put a link on your page somewhere or in my example replace the <img> tag and put a text to say "Download the plug in" or whatever.
The only thing is I doubt IE shows the alternate text/image if the Flash Player is missing.

Well there is the new stupid update from IE where you first have to click on a Flash object to activate it, so I guess everyone will now insert Flash with JavaScript rather than the object tag!

Alixe

By plug in do you mean the Flash Player? The Flash Player comes by default nowdays and you could still put a link on your page somewhere or in my example replace the IMG tag and put a text to say "Download the plug in" or whatever.

I know A version of it comes preinstalled by default with most everything, but how many "joe enduser" type people who bought a winXP machine 3 years ago know how to upgrade the flash player when a new one comes out? That's the other part of where these things tie in, being able to direct people to the right place to get them up to date.

Well there is the new stupid update from IE where you first have to click on a Flash object to activate it, so I guess everyone will now insert Flash with JavaScript rather than the object tag!

That stupid update was the result of an exceedingly stupid lawsuit that MS lost. Now that Eola has a precedent, you can expect them to sue Apple and Mozilla as well. Might as well start using JS now to embed Flash as you're going to have to sooner or later.

Actually it uses innerHTML because using DOM methods to embed flash content is very painful.

from the UFO site:

UFO supports MIME type application/xhtml+xml. For those who are interested in the technical details of the implementation, please note that UFO only uses W3C DOM methods to embed Flash movies for older Gecko based browsers and uses innerHTML for all other browsers. The reasons for this are:

1. Older versions of Gecko based browsers are the only browsers that don't support setting content with innerHTML when using MIME type application/xhtml+xml, which is a bug or misinterpretation that is fixed in later versions.
2. At the moment W3C DOM methods for embedding Flash movies only work correctly in Gecko based browsers.
3. Using W3C DOM methods, Safari and Opera suffer from all kinds of issues, like repaint problems, lack of support for certain parameters and varying levels of support for different browser versions.
4. Internet Explorer (both on Windows and Mac) doesn't support MIME type application/xhtml+xml at all.

I suspect that people will create an innerHTML.
fooElement.appendChild(XMLToDOM("<p>bla bla bla</p>");