[whatwg] Image maps: should we drop <a coords="">?
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Aug 7 21:40:23 PDT 2007
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, fantasai wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > Yup, it is indeed nice; if image maps had been designed that way from the
> > start it would make sense. But it's not _that_ much nicer than <area>, which
> > we could define as allowing:
> > <object data="foo" usemap="#foo">
> > <map id="foo">
> > <ul>
> > <li><area coords="..." href="..."><a href="...">...</a>
> > ...
> > ...which isn't much worse, and has the very important benefit of actually
> > working in IE6.
> And the perhaps less important disadvantage that it's impossible for a
> machine to warn against the lack of alt text. With both <area> and <a>
> in HTML 4, the spec was able to require 'alt' attributes on <area>,
> because, given <a coords="..."> to fill the mixed coords and fallback
> role, <area> was not intended to be used in conjunction with other
> fallback content. In what you're proposing, <area> also takes the role
> of <a coords="..."> and therefore takes no 'alt' attribute. The end
> result is, there's no way to know if the author actually provided alt
> text or is just throwing <area> into a mix of random block content.
Indeed. Not a huge problem, IMHO.
> Another thing to think about: afaict, the HTML 4 spec doesn't say
> whether or how the image map coordinate system scales when an image is
> stretched or shrunk via CSS.
Fixed in HTML5.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg