- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 14:08:51 +0100
- To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, "Andrea Rendine" <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:41:26 +0100, Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote: > why > not improving an existing feature instead of finding so many expensive > workarounds? It'd allow authors the choice to use between 2 different > tools > for different cases. See https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Where.27s_the_harm_in_adding.E2.80.94 I think many people consider <map> to be a "legacy" feature [1], where the primary goal is interop and compat with Web content. Changing such features means moving away from interop, and risk breaking Web content. Therefore, improvements of such features have a higher barrier compared to improvements of newer, better designed features. In this case, I think it is possible to extend <map> to address the use cases without regressing interop or breaking Web content, and there is demonstrated need from Web developers. The missing piece is positive signals from browser vendors. [1] The only new feature I'm aware of since HTML4 is HTMLMapElement#images. This feature has not been implemented by anyone, so unless somone suddenly shows interest implementing it, it will most likely be removed again. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28219 -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 13:09:21 UTC