Re: new anchor type?

Marcus E. Hennecke (marcush@crc.ricoh.com)
Wed, 26 Jun 1996 13:49:08 -0700 (PDT)


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 13:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Marcus E. Hennecke" <marcush@crc.ricoh.com>
Message-Id: <199606262049.NAA03382@cougar.crc.ricoh.com>
To: www-html@w3.org, editor@mbeacon.com
Subject: Re: new anchor type?

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:12:41 -0400, "Geoffrey Baker" <editor@mbeacon.com> wrote:
> I feel we should take the "alt" subset of the "img" tag and expand its
> use, thus:
> to support its use in image maps by allowing the "alt" to list multiple
> URL's.

But image maps already have the ALT attribute:
> <map name="map1">
> <AREA SHAPE=rect COORDS= "0,0,  133,14" HREF="a.htm">
> [...]
> <alt><a href="a.html>Back</a><br>

this would be written as:
<AREA SHAPE=rect COORDS= "0,0,  133,14" HREF="a.htm" ALT="Back">

Actually, if I read the Wilbur DTD right, the ALT attribute is even
*required*. I am not sure why the ALT attribute is not required for 
images. Maybe it's because if the IMG is actually an imagemap the ALT
text comes from the AREA elements?

However, the general idea of an ALT tag that would be used for new elements
to provide markup for browsers that do not understand the new elements is
probably useful and has been discussed at length. To date, no consensus has
emerged since every possible definition seems to have at least one drawback.

Marcus
--
Marcus E. Hennecke
marcush@crc.ricoh.com        http://www.crc.ricoh.com/~marcush/