Re: [w3c/webcomponents] Please add <map> to the list of elements that support attachShadow(init) (#734)

That post tries to illustrate that an image map is a primitive kind of web map.  Links (area tags) are a primitive kind of geographic feature and images are content in (essentially) non-responsive web maps.

I appreciate there are a whole host of technical and non-technical issues surrounding extending a long standing API.  

I guess this is a conversation that must be had and it's not meant to be bikeshedding.  It's meant to be practical, in fact.  

Let's just say you (the platform stalwarts) decide it's a good idea to extend and add maps.  The adoption will not be even across all browsers at the outset, like any feature.  So authors will need a way to backfill the browsers that haven't implemented.  If it's an entirely new element, say &lt;geomap&gt;, , what would an author do for those browsers that don't support?  They would likely want to put an old-school image map where the new map will be in other browsers, providing a primitive map-like behaviour on non-compliant browsers, I think.  So, why not just extend the &lt;map&gt; element in the first place?  

On the bikesheddy side, having two elements to do variations on one job is probably not great from a marketing POV - people might see the image map documentation and decide to go a complete other route, maybe even non-Web.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/734#issuecomment-366312532

Received on Friday, 16 February 2018 18:05:56 UTC