Semantic data extraction for "Why Validate? The Importance of Website Validation and Semantic Markup"

Quick Introduction

This tool, geared by an XSLT stylesheet, tries to extract some information from a HTML semantic rich document. It only uses information available through a good usage of the semantics defined in HTML.

The aim is to show that providing a semantically rich HTML gives much more value to your code: using a semantically rich HTML code allows a better use of CSS, makes your HTML intelligible to a wider range of user agents (especially search engines bots).

As an aside, it can give clues to user agents developers on some hooks that could be interesting to add in their product.

Extracted data

Generic metadata

Title: Why Validate? The Importance of Website Validation and Semantic Markup
Author: Administrator
Description: Website Validation: This series of articles combines the techniques of website validation and semantic markup into one encompassing topic. Since the two skillsets are closely related, these articles will naturally cross over. Prepare yourselves for hours of reading.
Language code: en

Abbreviations and Acronyms

The following abbreviations and/or acronyms are used in the given HTML page:

AUWG: standing for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
CMS: standing for Content Management System
CSS: standing for Cascading Style Sheets
DTDs: standing for Document Type Definitions
HTML: standing for HyperText Markup Language
UAAG: standing for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
W3: standing for World Wide Web Consortium
XHTML: standing for Extensible HyperText Markup Language
XML: standing for Extensible Markup Language

Citations and quote

There are some quotes and citations in this page:

required attribute "alt" not specified

/images/file.jpg" width="72" height="108" />

The attribute given above is required for an element that you've used, but you have omitted it.
In April a web designer who came across our site gave me the following feedback 'I don't know how you can advertise your skills in SEO when such a vital part of a good quality site is valid markup. Your homepage has 40 errors when I just checked.'

To which I replied '...and yet I rank page 1 in Google for SEO. Who cares about valid code? Not me. And not Google. Oh well.'
The objective of this technique is to use HTML and XHTML according to their respective specifications. Technology specifications define the meaning and proper handling of features of the technology. Using those features in the manner described by the specification ensures that user agents, including assistive technologies, will be able to present representations of the feature that are accurate to the author's intent and interoperable with each other.

There are a few broad aspects to using HTML and XHTML according to their specification.
1. Using only features that are defined in the specification HTML defines sets of elements, attributes, and attribute values that may be used on Web pages. These features have specific semantic meanings and are intended to be processed by user agents in particular ways. Sometimes, however, additional features come into common authoring practice. These are usually initially supported by only one user agent. When features not in the specification are used, many user agents may not support the feature for a while or ever. Furthermore, lacking standard specifications for the use of these features, different user agents may provide varying support. This impacts accessibility because assistive technologies, developed with fewer resources than mainstream user agents, may take a long time if ever to add useful support. Therefore, authors should avoid features not defined in HTML and XHTML to prevent unexpected accessibility problems.
2. Using features in the manner prescribed by the specification The HTML specification provides specific guidance about how particular elements, attributes, and attribute values are to be processed and understood semantically. Sometimes, however, authors use features in a manner that is not supported by the specification, for example, using semantic elements to achieve visual effects without intending the underlying semantic message to be conveyed. This leads to confusion for user agents and assistive technologies that rely on correct semantic information to present a coherent representation of the page. It is important to use HTML features only as prescribed by the HTML specification.
3. Making sure the content can be parsed HTML and XHTML also define how content should be encoded in order to be correctly processed by user agents. Rules about the structure of start and end tags, attributes and values, nesting of elements, etc. ensure that user agents will parse the content in a way to achieve the intended document representation. Following the structural rules in these specifications is an important part of using these technologies according to specification.
[source]
If you don't understand the hidden costs associated with poor coding practices, you won't realize the ROI of using valid code.[source]
Validating web documents is an important step which can dramatically help improving and ensuring their quality, and it can save a lot of time and money (read more on why validating matters). Validation is, however, neither a full quality check, nor is it strictly equivalent to checking for conformance to the specification.[source]
One of the important maxims of computer programming is: 'Be conservative in what you produce; be liberal in what you accept.'[source]
It makes me curious, however, to know what are the real life arguments in favor of valid, standard code today. Do you have an untold story of validation getting rid of an awful rendering glitch? Real life accounts of a search engine bump achieved by fixing the syntax of your HTML <head>? A typo in a CSS stylesheet that hours of glancing at code didn't show, but the validator did? A forgotten alt that would have lowered your search rank for an important keyword, or cost a big fee for non-accessibility?[source]
This document attempts to answer the questions many people have regarding why they should bother with Validating their web sites and tries to dispel a few common myths.
Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user.[source]
Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user.[source]
Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user.[source]
You don't need an SEO! There's a Plugin for that.[source]
This message will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck Jim...
Hi Edward, just like to say thanks for joining the discussion regarding Validation on SEOBook.com last week. I have to admit that I was actually opposed to what you were saying but upon a good dose of reflection, I now see that you are right. Like any tradesman it's always good to know that people do take pride in their work and yes, focus on quality. My site had a combined 1200+ errors and warnings, I've spent hours and hours fixing 95 percent of it - and I'm thankful, believe me! Your follow up article: SEOConsultants.com/Validation/ will be a source of information for me for a very long time and I intend to pass it on.

References were found to the following sources:

http://www.W3.org/TR/WCAG10/#equivalent
http://www.W3.org/TR/UAAG20/#def-text-eq
Jeremy from Australia

Outline of the document