- From: Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:23:33 +0100
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Robert Burns wrote: > On Aug 16, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Robert Burns wrote: >> In any event, it sounds like we wouldn't be breaking much content if >> we specced <input usemap> in a slightly different way than the current >> draft (or at least the draft before the changes were made that did not >> reflect the views of the WG). If it is specced differently to how <input usemap> is currently implemented in any browser, then <input usemap> is the worst possible name for the feature. It doesn't act consistently in all the current browsers, so it's very unlikely to degrade gracefully, and it would be incompatible with a small amount of existing content. <input anyothernewname> is consistently ignored and has never been used, so it is likely to be a better choice for a new feature. If you want a new feature that is not specified or implemented anywhere, it should be proposed as a new feature, and if there are suitable use cases (i.e. there are existing problems where the new feature is a significantly better solution than any existing technology) then details of syntax can be considered - that would be much more helpful than starting with an existing syntax (<input usemap>) and then trying to think of a feature to fit into that syntax to justify its existence. > What I would like to explore is how the big browsers handle the feature > now. Do you have any tools up you use to test these things? Just <http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/>, and thinking about what are likely to be interesting cases and then testing them to see what happens, and being careful to interpret the results correctly before making assumptions about the behaviour. -- Philip Taylor philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 15:23:39 UTC