HTML 4, WC3 validated



  • Hehe, check this out. They proudly included an HTML4 icon on their site.  Just, that the whole site is pretty much done in Flash ...

    http://www.prl.eu.com/ 



  • Of course, the extra irony is that the site [i]doesn't[/i] actually validate.



  • @Spectre said:

    Of course, the extra irony is that the site doesn't actually validate.
     

    Indeed, that weas the first thing I checked too.

    Of course, there is no valid HTML way of putting flash in a page. (while still maintaining automatic updates for people who don't have it or have an outdated version)

    Writing is with JS pulls your page trough the validator, but thats first class cheating. 



  • @dtech said:

    Of course, there is no valid HTML way of putting flash in a page. (while
    still maintaining automatic updates for people who don't have it or have an
    outdated version)

    Maybe, but why do that? If you want to upgrade Flash, go to Adobe's site. Personally, I loathe the idea of, say, a flash ad "conveniently" downloading an update behind my back.



  • @dtech said:

    Of course, there is no valid HTML way of putting flash in a page. (while still maintaining automatic updates for people who don't have it or have an outdated version)

    Writing is with JS pulls your page trough the validator, but thats first class cheating. 

     

    Maybe am wrong, but isn't the <object> tag supposed to be used for embedding flash?



  • @tchize said:

    @dtech said:

    Of course, there is no valid HTML way of putting flash in a page. (while still maintaining automatic updates for people who don't have it or have an outdated version)

    Writing is with JS pulls your page trough the validator, but thats first class cheating. 

     

    Maybe am wrong, but isn't the <object> tag supposed to be used for embedding flash?

     

    It is. But <embed> is most commonly used. Its also the only way to make sure you're users have a supporting version of the plugin. 



  • @Spectre said:

    @dtech said:

    Of course, there is no valid HTML way of putting flash in a page. (while
    still maintaining automatic updates for people who don't have it or have an
    outdated version)

    Maybe, but why do that? If you want to upgrade Flash, go to Adobe's site. Personally, I loathe the idea of, say, a flash ad "conveniently" downloading an update behind my back.

     

     Most users don't even know Adobe makes Flash. Nothing is being done behind your back. You get a simple dialog that notifies you that a more recent version is available and if you want to download it.

    If you i.e. want to put HD-flash-video on your site the user needs a very recent version. By providing that version as a minimum you prevent your users from getting a non working player. 



  • @Spectre said:

    Of course, the extra irony is that the site doesn't actually validate.
    A couple of years ago someone checked 400 websites run by W3C members and found that only 5% were fully W3C compiant.  The most common issue was using features that are specific to Microsoft Internet Explorer.

     

     



  • @dtech said:

    Most users don't even know Adobe makes Flash. Nothing is being done behind your back. You get a simple dialog that notifies you that a more recent version is available and if you want to download it.

    If you i.e. want to put HD-flash-video on your site the user needs a very recent version. By providing that version as a minimum you prevent your users from getting a non working player. 

     

    Except for the websites that "require" a new version of Flash, that hasn't say, been released for Linux. Thus rendering their page useless. 



  • @MHolt said:

    Except for the websites that "require" a new version of Flash, that hasn't say, been released for Linux. Thus rendering their page useless. 

     

    afaik the latest flash 9 has been released for linux. What is your problem? 



  • @dtech said:

    afaik the latest flash 9 has been released for linux. What is your problem?

    Well then there is no problem... Now... But there was, and there will again 



  • @MHolt said:

    @dtech said:

    afaik the latest flash 9 has been released for linux. What is your problem?

    Well then there is no problem... Now... But there was, and there will again 

    Then you should use Windows or OS X.  Or just avoid those sites altogether. 



  •  @dtech said:

    @MHolt said:

    Except for the websites that "require" a new version of Flash, that hasn't say, been released for Linux. Thus rendering their page useless. 

     

    afaik the latest flash 9 has been released for linux. What is your problem? 

    It still doesn't run on my Wii or PS3.



  • @vt_mruhlin said:

    It still doesn't run on my Wii or PS3.

    And I can't browse HTML 3 sites on my calculator.  If you're using the Wii or PS3 as your primary browser, that is TRWTF.  Browsing the web from a game console is just a convenience thing, not a replacement for a real computer.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    A couple of years ago someone checked 400 websites run by W3C members and found that only 5% were fully W3C compiant.  The most common issue was using features that are specific to Microsoft Internet Explorer.
    This deserves to be quoted.



  • @Zecc said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    A couple of years ago someone checked 400 websites run by W3C members and found that only 5% were fully W3C compiant.  The most common issue was using features that are specific to Microsoft Internet Explorer.
    This deserves to be quoted.

    I couldn't find the orignal article I read a few years ago, but I did find this one:

    http://triin.net/2006/03/05/Validating_sites_of_W3C_members 

    It turns out that they've made progress -- only 4% of the W3C member sites were compliant in 2002, but they were up to a whopping 17% in 2006.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @MHolt said:

    @dtech said:

    afaik the latest flash 9 has been released for linux. What is your problem?

    Well then there is no problem... Now... But there was, and there will again 

    Then you should use Windows or OS X.  Or just avoid those sites altogether. 

     

    No... I shouldn't... And yes, I do avoid those sites, all I said initially was that the sites loose traffic and potential costumers. 



  • TRWTF is making the entire site done in flash. (and also what the OP and other people wrote, as well)



  • @MHolt said:

    No... I shouldn't... And yes, I do avoid those sites, all I said initially was that the sites loose traffic and potential costumers. 

     

    I think the sites will mourn the 0,1% loss of trafic. 



  •  TRWTF is despite the fact that almost the entire site is in flash, they still felt the need to use tables for their layout...



  • Even the "site under construction" popup is in Flash. (this comes up if you hit the "members" tab)

    http://www.prl.eu.com/underCon.html

     



  • @tcm256 said:

    Even the "site under construction" popup is in Flash. (this comes up if you hit the "members" tab)

    Wait, what? All I see are img tags that point to animate gifs.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @tcm256 said:
    Even the "site under construction" popup is in Flash. (this comes up if you hit the "members" tab)

    Wait, what? All I see are img tags that point to animate gifs.
    Animated GIFs? What are you talking about, man? The only way to make an image move is with Flash!



  • @tcm256 said:

    http://www.prl.eu.com/underCon.html

    OH GOD, I'VE ACCIDENTALLY TRAVELLED BACK TO 1996!  KILL IT WITH FIRE! 



  • ha, stupid me. For some reason i thought those were in flash.



  • @pascalo said:

    http://www.prl.eu.com/ 

     

     I also like that they register a .eu.com domain (what is that anyway) so it looks like they are international. However, while I am in Europe, I'm sure I won't get them on the line when I dial the phone number on their site..


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.