By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,364 Members | 1,651 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,364 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

img title core attribute

P: n/a
Group,

New to this list. I just found out that FireFox does not display the img
alt attribute the same way IE does. I use both browsers to verify that my
pages are readable. Dumb me for not reading all of the reference document.
With this is mind, I need a way to display text in a title attribute,
dynamically. I don't like the idea of going through 100+ pages and making
the changes every time a load new images. Is it possible to have a variable
in the title attribute that will display text from a list in a separate
file? In fact, I'd like to do this with the alt attribute--if either is
possible. That way I'd have to change the core pages once and then edit the
text file as things changed. I guess my idea is somewhat like a CSS page.
I'd also like to keep my image pages strict XHTML with as little Java as
possible. PHP doesn't work on my server and my knowledge of XML is nil.
Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give me.

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
14 Replies


P: n/a
"Del Ferguson" <ra********@charter.net> wrote:
I just found out that FireFox does not display the
img alt attribute the same way IE does.
That is correct. I mean the Firefox behavior is correct. This has been
discussed several times, but you might take a look at a treatise on it at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html#tooltip

To put it briefly, if this change causes problem to your page, then you
have misunderstood the meaning of the alt attribute, and many of your alt
attributes might be worse than useless to them who really need alt
attributes.
Dumb me for not reading all of the
reference document. With this is mind, I need a way to display text in
a title attribute, dynamically.
Do you? Although the title attribute _is_ more or less meant to be used as
a tooltip, do you really _need_ it, and are you _relying_ on it? Besides,
your alt attributes are probably wrong, and this requires attention.
Is it
possible to have a variable in the title attribute that will display
text from a list in a separate file?


No. There are no variables in HTML.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Del Ferguson wrote:
New to this list. I just found out that FireFox does not display the img
alt attribute the same way IE does.
Those both sort-of display the alternative text when images are not
being displayed. That's what "alternative" primarily means, after
all. IE is a bit crabby if the text is larger than the area of the
image - but the user has the ability to insist (via a fairly obscure
option on the configuration menu) on the whole text being displayed
instead of the image.
I use both browsers to verify that my pages are readable.
That's a bit narrow - only one WWW-conforming graphical browser, and
IE, and nothing else. Nobody expects you to keep a menagerie of
hundreds of browsers on dozens of operating systems, as some
specialists do, but can't you throw your net a /bit/ more widely?
At least include one text-mode browser (Lynx or links or w3m).
With this is mind, I need a way to display text in a title
attribute, dynamically.
I think you're approaching this in the wrong frame of mind. Your job
as an author is supposed to be providing honest content. How that
content is displayed in each and every browsing situation is really up
to the reader.

The "title" attribute is supposed to be available for providing
reasonably short textual information "about" the resource to which
it's applied.

In practice, most graphical browsers will use the "title" attribute
to provide a popup containing the text of the attribute. Is this what
you're hinting that you want?
I don't like the idea of going through 100+ pages and making
the changes every time a load new images.
Eh?
Is it possible to have a variable in the title attribute that will
display text from a list in a separate file?
Not at the WWW interface, no. But you could do it with any of the
many server-side processing facilities - whatever is available on the
server that you use.
In fact, I'd like to do this with the alt attribute--if either is
possible.
Same difference, technically. But please use these attributes for
their proper purposes. IE is only ape-ing an old outdated paradigm
from the now-obsolete Netscape browser series. Modern Mozilla-based
browsers have turned their back on that inappropriate usage, and
rightly so[1]. But if you provide both alt= and title= attributes
then IE will behave appropriately (in the sense of the HTML and WAI
specifications). It's only if there is no title= attribute that it
falls back to the old and inappropriate behaviour of Netscape <= 4
versions.
That way I'd have to change the core pages once and then edit the
text file as things changed.
Yes, but take care that by making your page dynamic on the server, you
don't destroy cacheability. See Mark Nottingham's tutorial.
I guess my idea is somewhat like a CSS page.
I don't think so. CSS is for presentation /proposals/, which, in the
final analysis, are supposed to be optional. HTML is for providing
real *content*, which browsers (and other kinds of client) are
supposed to render - or otherwise process - according to their
purpose.
I'd also like to keep my image pages strict XHTML with as little
Java as possible.


Java? Who said anything about Java?

I suppose we need to know more about what *is* available on the
swerver that you use. But if push comes to shove, why not use some
kind of pre-processor and generate static pages? At least that way
there will be no risk of damaging the cacheability of your site.

good luck

[1] I think that simplified presentation will suffice for here.
There are detailed considerations on the client side, but they
shouldn't be of primary concern to authors.
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
Del Ferguson wrote:
Group,

New to this list. I just found out that FireFox does not display the img
alt attribute the same way IE does. I use both browsers to verify that my
pages are readable. Dumb me for not reading all of the reference document.
With this is mind, I need a way to display text in a title attribute,
dynamically. I don't like the idea of going through 100+ pages and making
the changes every time a load new images.


I'm confused--what does your realization that tooltips should be
implemented using the TITLE attribute rather than the ALT attribute have
to do with your need to determine dynamically how those tooltips should
read?
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..
"Del Ferguson" <ra********@charter.net> wrote:
I just found out that FireFox does not display the
img alt attribute the same way IE does.
That is correct. I mean the Firefox behavior is correct. This has been
discussed several times, but you might take a look at a treatise on it at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html#tooltip

To put it briefly, if this change causes problem to your page, then you
have misunderstood the meaning of the alt attribute, and many of your alt
attributes might be worse than useless to them who really need alt
attributes.


I read through your document and found it very interesting. I will keep it
bookmarked. My favorite "quick" reference site defines ALT as "bla" and
TITLE as "bla, bla, bla." Your explanation presents the subject in an
entirely different light. I use ALT because it is required for W3C
validation; however, I just describe 100 images and 100 thumbs as Photo 001
through Photo 100.
Dumb me for not reading all of the
reference document. With this is mind, I need a way to display text in
a title attribute, dynamically.
Do you? Although the title attribute _is_ more or less meant to be used as
a tooltip, do you really _need_ it, and are you _relying_ on it? Besides,
your alt attributes are probably wrong, and this requires attention.


It is most likely that I do not really need the TITLE attribute and will
have to find an alternative method of supplying a description to each image
(photograph). The more I thought about it, the more I think that it would
be easier just to provide a 5 element list on each of the 20 thumb index
pages and leave the ALT and TITLE attributes alone.
Is it
possible to have a variable in the title attribute that will display
text from a list in a separate file?


No. There are no variables in HTML.


It would make sense that there wouldn't be, but I thought I'd ask.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


Regards,

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Del Ferguson" <ra********@charter.net> writes:
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..
That is correct. I mean the Firefox behavior is correct. This has been
discussed several times, but you might take a look at a treatise on it at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html#tooltip
I read through your document and found it very interesting. I will keep it
bookmarked. My favorite "quick" reference site defines ALT as "bla" and
TITLE as "bla, bla, bla." Your explanation presents the subject in an


Then I *strongly* recommend you find a new favourite quick reference
site. http://www.htmlhelp.com/ is fairly good for looking up tags and
their attributes.
entirely different light. I use ALT because it is required for W3C
validation; however, I just describe 100 images and 100 thumbs as Photo 001
through Photo 100.


Well, your document is then valid (SGML validation merely requires
that alt exists and is a string of some sort) but not conforming to
the specification (which requires that the value be
appropriate). Validation is a useful tool but not the end of it.

There are several documents on the web about how to pick a good alt
attribute - I recommend
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/%7Eflavell/alt/alt-text.html

--
Chris
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Del Ferguson wrote:
New to this list. I just found out that FireFox does not display the img
alt attribute the same way IE does.
Those both sort-of display the alternative text when images are not
being displayed. That's what "alternative" primarily means, after
all. IE is a bit crabby if the text is larger than the area of the
image - but the user has the ability to insist (via a fairly obscure
option on the configuration menu) on the whole text being displayed
instead of the image.
I use both browsers to verify that my pages are readable.


That's a bit narrow - only one WWW-conforming graphical browser, and
IE, and nothing else. Nobody expects you to keep a menagerie of
hundreds of browsers on dozens of operating systems, as some
specialists do, but can't you throw your net a /bit/ more widely?
At least include one text-mode browser (Lynx or links or w3m).


I guess I didn't go far enough and explain that I do go to the Cynthia Says
Portal site to check my pages. I also figure that if my pages validate
strict XHTML with W3C and the CSS validates, I'm fairly safe. To be sure,
there will always be one or two that will complain, but I've done my best.
With this is mind, I need a way to display text in a title
attribute, dynamically.


I think you're approaching this in the wrong frame of mind. Your job
as an author is supposed to be providing honest content. How that
content is displayed in each and every browsing situation is really up
to the reader.

The "title" attribute is supposed to be available for providing
reasonably short textual information "about" the resource to which
it's applied.

In practice, most graphical browsers will use the "title" attribute
to provide a popup containing the text of the attribute. Is this what
you're hinting that you want?


This is what I was hinting at; however, it doesn't seem very practical now.
I don't like the idea of going through 100+ pages and making
the changes every time a load new images.
Eh?


What can I say? I'm just a Senior Citizen trying to put a family photo
album online. My mind is ahead of my typing. I meant to say, "...the
changes every time I load new images." I have over 1300 photographs that I
want to put online 100 at a time. This breaks down to 100 image xhtml pages
and 20 thumb index xhtml pages per 100 photographs. I went this way because
I didn't want to use the FRAMES, JAVASCRIPT, PERL, PHP, and non-strict HTML
that so many photo album "wizards" use. I guess I'm stubborn, because
everything must validate strict XHTML with W3C.
Is it possible to have a variable in the title attribute that will
display text from a list in a separate file?


Not at the WWW interface, no. But you could do it with any of the
many server-side processing facilities - whatever is available on the
server that you use.
In fact, I'd like to do this with the alt attribute--if either is
possible.


Same difference, technically. But please use these attributes for
their proper purposes. IE is only ape-ing an old outdated paradigm
from the now-obsolete Netscape browser series. Modern Mozilla-based
browsers have turned their back on that inappropriate usage, and
rightly so[1]. But if you provide both alt= and title= attributes
then IE will behave appropriately (in the sense of the HTML and WAI
specifications). It's only if there is no title= attribute that it
falls back to the old and inappropriate behaviour of Netscape <= 4
versions.


With my favorite editor it is really no problem to add the TITLE attribute
to each of my files and that will be done as soon as possible. I think the
best route for me to go is to just make a 1200+ line text file of the image
descriptions, copy five descriptions at a time, and paste them as a list to
the appropriate index page. That way, I only have to change 20 pages when I
upload a new group of 100 images. That is about the only way I can think of
to reuse my "core" 120 pages.
That way I'd have to change the core pages once and then edit the
text file as things changed.


Yes, but take care that by making your page dynamic on the server, you
don't destroy cacheability. See Mark Nottingham's tutorial.
I guess my idea is somewhat like a CSS page.


I don't think so. CSS is for presentation /proposals/, which, in the
final analysis, are supposed to be optional. HTML is for providing
real *content*, which browsers (and other kinds of client) are
supposed to render - or otherwise process - according to their
purpose.


A bone-head analogy on my part. I guess I meant it in the context of having
data somewhere else that is presented by the HTML document--somewhat like a
database.
I'd also like to keep my image pages strict XHTML with as little
Java as possible.


Java? Who said anything about Java?


JavaScript, Perl, PHP, XML, etc. Just want to keep my pages simple and
strict XHTML.
I suppose we need to know more about what *is* available on the
swerver that you use. But if push comes to shove, why not use some
kind of pre-processor and generate static pages? At least that way
there will be no risk of damaging the cacheability of your site.

Nothing exotic is available in the server that provides me web space.
good luck

[1] I think that simplified presentation will suffice for here.
There are detailed considerations on the client side, but they
shouldn't be of primary concern to authors.


Cheers,

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:34*************@individual.net...
Del Ferguson wrote:
Group,

New to this list. I just found out that FireFox does not display the img
alt attribute the same way IE does. I use both browsers to verify that
my pages are readable. Dumb me for not reading all of the reference
document. With this is mind, I need a way to display text in a title
attribute, dynamically. I don't like the idea of going through 100+
pages and making the changes every time a load new images.


I'm confused--what does your realization that tooltips should be
implemented using the TITLE attribute rather than the ALT attribute have
to do with your need to determine dynamically how those tooltips should
read?


In other replies to my original post I stated that my use of ALT was to
describe the image. Because I had so many images, I didn't want to go
through a multitude of pages changing the ALT statement every time I
uploaded 100 images. My thoughts on ALT and/or TITLE were indeed wrong. As
ALT is required for validation, I will just add TITLE to my existing pages
so that FireFox will display the same way IE does. As for a description of
each image, I think a short list on each image index page will suffice. I
don't think it would be too hard for anyone match the description to the 5
"thumb" images on each index page.

If anyone has a better idea, please let me know.

Regards,

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a

"Chris Morris" <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:87************@dinopsis.dur.ac.uk...
"Del Ferguson" <ra********@charter.net> writes:
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xn*****************************@193.229.0.31. ..
> That is correct. I mean the Firefox behavior is correct. This has been
> discussed several times, but you might take a look at a treatise on it
> at
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html#tooltip
I read through your document and found it very interesting. I will keep
it
bookmarked. My favorite "quick" reference site defines ALT as "bla" and
TITLE as "bla, bla, bla." Your explanation presents the subject in an


Then I *strongly* recommend you find a new favourite quick reference
site. http://www.htmlhelp.com/ is fairly good for looking up tags and
their attributes.


My above reference came from W3Schools. I like the site because it isn't
too complex. My feeble brain goes into overload at some of the other sites.
Even W3C can give me fits. I'll look into your suggested site.
entirely different light. I use ALT because it is required for W3C
validation; however, I just describe 100 images and 100 thumbs as Photo
001
through Photo 100.
Well, your document is then valid (SGML validation merely requires
that alt exists and is a string of some sort) but not conforming to
the specification (which requires that the value be
appropriate). Validation is a useful tool but not the end of it.

There are several documents on the web about how to pick a good alt
attribute - I recommend
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/%7Eflavell/alt/alt-text.html


When you have 1200+ images, "any" easy solution looks good; however ALT and
TITLE seems to be the incorrect way to go.

--
Chris


Cheers,

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
Del Ferguson wrote:
A bone-head analogy on my part. I guess I meant it in the context of having
data somewhere else that is presented by the HTML document--somewhat like a
database.
Oh, now I see what you want.

No, you need program code to do that.
I'd also like to keep my image pages strict XHTML with as little
Java as possible.

HTML 4.01 Strict is a better choice.

Java? Who said anything about Java?

JavaScript, Perl, PHP, XML, etc. Just want to keep my pages simple and
strict XHTML.


You can do it cleanly & simply in PHP. You'll need to learn a little PHP
(but will find tutorials specifically covering photo galleries) & a
server supporting PHP.
Nothing exotic is available in the server that provides me web space.


Change to another? I use one that costs me only about 30ukp per year &
is fine for a low or mid traffic site requiring only reasonable uptime.

Failing that, learn to use a decent text editor which will at least let
you make 'manual' changes to your static pages in a semi automatic
fashion & save you a lot of time in the long run.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a

"Michael Rozdoba" <mr**@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:41**********************@news.zen.co.uk...
Del Ferguson wrote:
A bone-head analogy on my part. I guess I meant it in the context of
having data somewhere else that is presented by the HTML
document--somewhat like a database.


Oh, now I see what you want.

No, you need program code to do that.
I'd also like to keep my image pages strict XHTML with as little
Java as possible.
HTML 4.01 Strict is a better choice.

Java? Who said anything about Java?

JavaScript, Perl, PHP, XML, etc. Just want to keep my pages simple and
strict XHTML.


You can do it cleanly & simply in PHP. You'll need to learn a little PHP
(but will find tutorials specifically covering photo galleries) & a server
supporting PHP.
Nothing exotic is available in the server that provides me web space.


Change to another? I use one that costs me only about 30ukp per year & is
fine for a low or mid traffic site requiring only reasonable uptime.

Failing that, learn to use a decent text editor which will at least let
you make 'manual' changes to your static pages in a semi automatic fashion
& save you a lot of time in the long run.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t


Michael (and Group),

Being retired, I tend to save my pennies, so changing to a commercial server
is not what I want to do. As it is, I pay for a high-speed cable
connection, as well as cable TV. As much as I like the looks of how PHP
does things, I guess my priorities are elsewhere. Right now, I don't think
you see as much PHP in the US as the rest of the World. We always seem to
be the last to follow the emerging standards. My pages are just family
genealogy anyway, so what I think will work won't have that much impact on
the Internet. If I can come close to what you all have discussed in your
replies, I'll be happy. If nothing else, it keeps me thinking about a
better way to do things. As for an editor, I use Note Tab Pro (in my
opinion, one of the best little editors to come down the pike) and I can
make common changes to 20 or 100 files without too much effort. I never
liked the WYSIWYG editors and I'm basically coding on my own--the best way
to learn. Again, thank you all for your input.

Cheers,

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
Del Ferguson wrote:
Being retired, I tend to save my pennies, so changing to a commercial server
is not what I want to do. As it is, I pay for a high-speed cable
connection, as well as cable TV.
Fair call & either way, obviously your decision :)
As for an editor, I use Note Tab Pro (in my
opinion, one of the best little editors to come down the pike) and I can
make common changes to 20 or 100 files without too much effort. I never
liked the WYSIWYG editors and I'm basically coding on my own--the best way
to learn.


If I wanted to take your approach, I'd stick my current 200 image
descriptions in a textfile, one per line, & in my web pages, give each
image a numeric id along with whatever mechanism I'd chosen to make the
image description available, but with no content.

I'd then use my editor, Vim, to automatically fill this content in by
searching for the ids across all such webpages in one go, pulling the
corresponding line from the text file & shoving that into the
corresponding location for the content of the description in the webpage.

Not sure /how/ I'd do that, but I'm pretty sure it could be done with
Vim. No idea about Note Tab Pro.

Then to change to another set of 200 images, all you need do is replace
the description file locally, re run the process to copy across the
description info into your local pages & finally reupload the new images
& static pages to your server.

In reality, while I might try it with Vim, given my own background I'd
be more inclined to write a small perl script to do the same job. That
all said, my preferred solution would be php; for only a 1000 or so
images, I'd still keep the descriptions in a text file, one line per
description.

If I knew I'd be doing this for more than two batches of 200 images,
what I wouldn't do is manually edit every single description directly
within the static html. Too tedious, inflexible & in my case likely to
lead to me making typos & messing up the syntax.

Hope you find a satisfactory solution :)

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a

"Michael Rozdoba" <mr**@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:41**********************@news.zen.co.uk...
Del Ferguson wrote:
Being retired, I tend to save my pennies, so changing to a commercial
server is not what I want to do. As it is, I pay for a high-speed cable
connection, as well as cable TV.


Fair call & either way, obviously your decision :)
As for an editor, I use Note Tab Pro (in my
opinion, one of the best little editors to come down the pike) and I can
make common changes to 20 or 100 files without too much effort. I never
liked the WYSIWYG editors and I'm basically coding on my own--the best
way to learn.


If I wanted to take your approach, I'd stick my current 200 image
descriptions in a textfile, one per line, & in my web pages, give each
image a numeric id along with whatever mechanism I'd chosen to make the
image description available, but with no content.

I'd then use my editor, Vim, to automatically fill this content in by
searching for the ids across all such webpages in one go, pulling the
corresponding line from the text file & shoving that into the
corresponding location for the content of the description in the webpage.

Not sure /how/ I'd do that, but I'm pretty sure it could be done with Vim.
No idea about Note Tab Pro.

Then to change to another set of 200 images, all you need do is replace
the description file locally, re run the process to copy across the
description info into your local pages & finally reupload the new images &
static pages to your server.

In reality, while I might try it with Vim, given my own background I'd be
more inclined to write a small perl script to do the same job. That all
said, my preferred solution would be php; for only a 1000 or so images,
I'd still keep the descriptions in a text file, one line per description.

If I knew I'd be doing this for more than two batches of 200 images, what
I wouldn't do is manually edit every single description directly within
the static html. Too tedious, inflexible & in my case likely to lead to me
making typos & messing up the syntax.

Hope you find a satisfactory solution :)

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t


Michael,

I totally agree. In my early previous life (about 20 years before
retirement) I was in the UNIX world for awhile(some C, some Shell, but
mostly software maintenance activities) and I see much in PHP that would
make my efforts far easier. However, I've chosen my path (rather
Charter.net has) and I'll make the best of it--even if I have to edit 20
files every time I upload 100 images.

I will look into some easier type of a substitution process.

I've tried VIM; however, it just wasn't the same (to me) as the old original
VI. For years, when Windows started taking over the world, I even used the
original MKS Tool Kit (DOS Version) to help me make the transition. I
started in the HTML world with Arachnophilia, but the author came along and
converted to JAVA. His choice, but it slowed down on this old machine of
mine. Note Tab came along with the programming syntax help menus, FTP,
TIDY, etc., and I was hooked.

Now, on to my quest to get rid of tables.

Del Ferguson
Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
Tim
"Chris Morris" <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote
Then I *strongly* recommend you find a new favourite quick reference
site. http://www.htmlhelp.com/ is fairly good for looking up tags and
their attributes.

"Del Ferguson" <ra********@charter.net> posted:
My above reference came from W3Schools. I like the site because it isn't
too complex. My feeble brain goes into overload at some of the other sites.
Even W3C can give me fits. I'll look into your suggested site.
W3Schools teachs some VERY BAD things, there's some glaring errors in it,
and that's not a good way to start learning something. Think of the W3C as
your reference material (like encyclopedias and dictionaries), it is a
place to look up the definitions of things. If you need a more tutorial
based system, you'd probably want to use a search engine to search through
it for something more specific as a guide or tutorial on what you're
trying, or use the HTML help website.

When you have 1200+ images, "any" easy solution looks good; however ALT and
TITLE seems to be the incorrect way to go.


Depends... ALT should be an alternative representation of your image,
title should be some sort of descriptive title for it. *Sometimes* the two
can be the same.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
Tim
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:50:50 -0800,
"Del Ferguson" <ra********@charter.net> posted:
In other replies to my original post I stated that my use of ALT was to
describe the image. Because I had so many images, I didn't want to go
through a multitude of pages changing the ALT statement every time I
uploaded 100 images.


There are some editors which allow you to do a global search and replace
across several text files at once. Depending on what else is on the page,
it could be as simple as something like this on all open files:

replace: alt=
with: alt="(photo)" title=

Assuming that all images with alt attributes were in fact photos with
descriptions, you'd now have the old alt information as title information,
and have some maybe suitable alt text for.

If you had other non-photo images with alt attributes you'd have to be more
creative than that. For instance, I've done things like:

replace: .jpeg" alt=
with: .jpeg" alt="(photo)" title=

To change all JPEG image file's (photos) attributes, while leaving alone
PNG or GIF navigation ones.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 23 '05 #15

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.