[uf-new] img alt content (was:hAudio implemented on Bitmunk (with
scott at makedatamakesense.com
Tue Jul 10 15:10:14 PDT 2007
On Jul 10, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Many publishers go against many aspects of the HTML 4.01
>> yes, not in the least by publishing invalid content.
> Is the best way to encourage "POSH" to adhere to standards, or to
> to those who break them?
If we had more control of web publishing, I would support pushing
complete adherence to HTML specs. But we don't, so we have to
balance de jure standards with de facto standards. We treat all alt
values as content at the risk of discouraging publishers who use alt
values for non-content from using microformats. Whether or not
that's a worthwhile trade-off depends on how many publishers we're
> Perhaps it
> would be a good idea if you could provide at least a minimum amount of
> such evidence; preferably with URLs
Indeed, we should collect more examples of how alt is used in
practice, because that's a very important factor in deciding how we
should treat them. But if we're just collecting such examples with
an eye toward supporting pre-determined conclusions, there's really
> 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?
While the HTML specs are a very important consideration, they are not
the only consideration. While encouraging adherence to HTML, we need
to recognize that such adherence is quite rare in practice. How many
of us even have perfectly valid websites? Complete adherence to HTML
is simply not a practical criteria to apply without concession on
today's web. We should push it where we can and choose those battles
More information about the microformats-new