- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:22:14 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7076 Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lhs@malform.no --- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> 2009-07-12 03:22:13 --- So, currently this bug has been marked as "resolved" for the wrong reasons: Giovannis's test case was wrong (using @id instead of @name). Thus we have at least two /current/ interoperable implementations: Firefox and Opera. In addition to that, we have some supporting implementations that were current a few years ago: IE5 for Mac and iCab 3. Thus we have probably previously had at least 4 interoperable version. (Which nullifies Michaels argument that HTML 4 should not have included this.) Also, reading the Microsoft documentation, it actually says that shape/coords works on <a> also (since IE6). OK, it doesn't work, but there were many things that did not work up until IE8, and hence there is hope that they could fix this in IE8.1, I think. Further, Google Doctype documents better IE script support for shape in <a> than in <area>: http://code.google.com/p/doctype/wiki/AShapeAttribute With regard to Webkit, then it is just quite buggy. For instance, it doesn't support image maps that uses OBJECT instead of IMG elements - it is generally very buggy w.r.t. OBJECTs. I also share Giovanni's view that <a> has many advantage over <area>, including accessibility advantages. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 12 July 2009 03:22:23 UTC