Hi I am wondering can flash be validated like XHTML or CSS can be validated at w3c schools, I am needing this info for my disertation so if you can reply or pm me with your real name then i can include it in my bibliography. Can you also mention your source of information and how you derived at your outcome.
Well, ActionScript won't function at runtime if it isn't valid. Unlike HTML, XHTML 1.0 or CSS, invalid code isn't left to the browser to interpret one way or another, because it's not being run by the browser, it's being run by the Flash plug-in you've installed into your browser, which makes the end result consistently correct or incorrect across the board. In ActionScript, either something works, or it doesn't.
A Flash project is compiled into an .swf file. You wouldn't be able to validate a binary file. But if you do mean whether the scripting language used can be validated, as Paul mentioned it won't work and the debugger will let you know.
Ok thankyou, I expected this but was unsure. Can you tell me your source of information as why you where lead to that conclusion, i know logic tells us that binary iles cannot be validated but i just need to show the reader of my document how the conclusion was reached.
Well, its ability to run is in-and-of-itself the validation that accompanies the file. It's not something you would find documented so much as it is an observable state on which you would report. It's sort of like looking at a house and then seeking out documentation to confirm it is indeed sitting right in front of you. It's existence is its own validation, and the documentation is what you create to document that you've observed it in a state of existence.
If your Flash file is created incorrectly, you will not observe a fully functional file. If it is created "validly," you will observe it in a fully functional state. I don't really know that you'll be able to find documentation that proves this to be the case, just like looking at a picture someone took of a standing house doesn't really provide any additional evidence that the house right in front of your eyes is indeed standing.
Am I making any sense, or am I confusing the hell out of the issue?