[uf-new] img alt content (was:hAudio implemented on Bitmunk (with onesnag))

Paul Wilkins paul_wilkins at xtra.co.nz
Tue Jul 10 14:52:26 PDT 2007

From: "Andy Mabbett" <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>>> What reasons would a publisher
>>> have to do this?
[garbage in alt attributes]
>>> If they're doing this, aren't they quite blatantly
>>> violating the HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 specification?
>>Not necessarily.
> Can you give a real world example of someone publishing such "garbage"
> alt text, pertinent to microformats (and again with URLs as above),
> which does not violate the HTML specs, please?

I can.

Our website uses feature pages for our cleints to help improve their 
visibility to the general public through search engines. One of the ways of 
doing this is to load the page with specific keywords and phrases for our 

Images for example would have "Copyright CityLife Auckland. Suite at our 
Auckland hotel accommodation"

A google search for "auckland hotel accommodation" results in their feature 
page being the third result.

In terms of the page and ensuring high visibility, this is the right thing 
to do, but in terms of microformats and providing the information that's 
required, using this alt information is the wrong thing to do.

As far as my boss is concerned, microformats are a tiny blip on our radar 
and are not worth his time. I believe that he is wrong there, and am 
steadily massaging our information so that microformats can be applied as 
easily as possible when the time comes.

However, as a business we have a commitment to our clients to provide them 
the best results that we can. When the time comes, microformats will need to 
take such issues into account before we apply them, because they must not 
reduce the effectiveness of our results. Our alt tags will contain whatever 
they must to maintain their high search engine placements and anything that 
interferes with that will get fallen by the wayside.

Paul Wilkins 

More information about the microformats-new mailing list