- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:28:11 -0400
- To: "Philip Taylor" <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On 8/15/07, Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Interoperability and consistency can be achieved less expensively by > removing a feature than by specifying it, implementing it, testing it, > describing it in tutorials and books, etc. <input usemap> would have a > similar cost to an entirely new feature, since there is no adequate > specification of its current behaviour (HTML4 says almost nothing, and > isn't even consistent about whether it's specified or not [1]) and it is > not yet widely implemented or documented. The cost has to be balanced > against the benefits, and it looks like people have not seen a > convincing demonstration that the benefits are sufficient. > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.6.2 - "Future > projects: ... Another possible extension would be to add the usemap > attribute to INPUT for use as client-side image map when "type=image"" The way Firefox handles <input usemap> is great. At the moment, I can't think of one thing about its implementation that is wrong or unexpected. Defining <input usemap> (if we decide to at some time) doesn't seem like it'd be difficult at all since we have a great implementation for reference. -- Michael
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 18:28:15 UTC