- From: Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:56:03 +0100
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Robert Burns wrote: > On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:36 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> [...] >> These are the kinds of possibilities you could look for. >> >> * Sites that use <input usemap> for legitimate use cases. > > I think the fact that this is not implemented in an interoperable way > already suggests the existence or non-existence of evidence like that is > useless. We might as well be looking for evidence of the <element-I > -just-made-up> is used appropriately and for legitimate use-cases. A > poorly implemented feature from HTML 4.01 has little more likelihood of > existing in the wild than that element. The data at <http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/survey/2007-07-17/analyse.cgi/index> suggests that (0.8+/-0.2)% of the 4.5 million pages listed on dmoz.org use <blink>. That has about the same level of support as <input usemap> (it works in Netscape/Firefox but not in IE) and degrades in the same way (it just gets ignored), but <blink> is used two thousand times more than <input usemap> (given the "0.00036%" from Hixie's data). <element-I-just-made-up> is used in zero pages. The differences in the likelihoods of existing in the wild are significant. (From the same data, <map> is on (13.2+/-0.8)% of pages, and <img usemap> is on about the same number, and <img ismap> is on (1.2+/-0.3)% of pages. So client-side and server-side image maps are both quite common on <img>, but client-side image maps are forty thousand times rarer on <input>. (Unfortunately I didn't collect any data on how much <input type=image> there is).) -- Philip Taylor philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 12:56:13 UTC