W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Dropping <input usemap="">

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:57:57 -0500
Message-Id: <BA25B8C4-F8C8-4318-80F2-78DAC4CD8EA6@robburns.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>

Hi Lachlan,

You are the one who fails to recognize that there are other points of  
view. I have told you that if you think research needs to be done on  
this, you should enter it on the wiki. There may be other members of  
the WG who can help with that. You should be very much more specific  
about what you're looking to find with that research.  You should lay  
out hypotheses that you want to test, and setup thresholds that you  
think should convince the group to drop this from the  
recommendation.  All of that would make your case stronger.

Looking through the largely errant examples that Ian extracted from  
the Google cache is a waste of time. If you were serious about  
testing for real use-cases in the wild, the search would have been of  
sites that use maps without @href set. Those are the sites that are  
using the feature we're talking about.

On the laundry list of norms that need to be specified, those are  
largely covered by current implementations and the HTML 4.01  
recommendation. Those are the parts that implementations already got  
right, so its work that we can build upon. What's needed instead is  
to add to that particularly with respect to a liaison with the CSS  
WG. Its the CSS part that never got addressed. The HTML 4.01  
recommendation is mostly fine on this. Though I think there could be  
some DOM improvements we might make for image maps.

On the use-cases I listed, those are not hypothetical. I use such  
user-interfaces all of the time. They just cannot be easily created  
in HTML without client-side image maps (with better CSS support) or  
excruciatingly tedious javascript work. I thought the members of the  
WhatWG were going to be more friendly to bringing rich U to HTML. I  
must  have been thinking of a different group.

Why is that we can eliminate something like this without proper  
research, butt maintaining a feature requires research?

Take care,
Rob
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 07:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC