- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 03:42:05 -0700
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Chris Double" <cdouble@mozilla.com>
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:22:01 -0700, Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com> wrote: > <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is there anybody apart from Ian who does not understand what the change >> proposal [1] is asking for? > > I think it would be great if more than a one liner was proposed in > 'Details'. True, and note my earlier suggestions for the detail which as far as I can see amounts to a couple of lines. That said, given that image maps are more than a decade old and haven't changed much (there was a change between 1998 and 1999 in the update of HTML 4 to HTML 4.01) I would expect anyone moderately familiar with HTML to understand what is under discussion. > You posted an example of Canvas usage earlier where you > felt adding 'usemap' would improve things. Describing this original > canvas usage, followed by how 'usemap' would improve things would > provide more details about what is actually wanted. Yes. > Including details > on what parts of the specification that currently use 'usemap' should > be pulled into canvas or otherwise modified would be useful. I believe that http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom#For_point_1: covers the details required. Note also http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/Map4NotAdom#For_point_5_.28fallback_content_not_normally_navigable.29: which provides a clarification, which was not present for the analgous case of object (which works but is a seperate question). > Canvas is used in a more dynamic manner than img. Drawing into it is > done via javascript. How do you handle things like the drawing of the > canvas is not complete but the 'usemap' is active, etc. Perhaps issues > about that could be discussed. Sure. For what it's worth, the recent version of the current spec on which I based my change proposal effectivly says that the image map refers to whatever it was the last time it was defined, and needs to be re-evaluated if changed, seems pretty clear to me which is why I didn't bother proposing any changes in that area. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 10:42:48 UTC