- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:32:38 -0700
- To: Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote: >> Instead, we start by figuring out what problems need solving. > Which is what has been done for this subject, I guess. > PROBLEM: image maps, intended as "shaped link areas related to specific > regions of an image" are a fairly requested feature. Unfortunately, as > current solutions are not responsive and they can't fit to how images are > defined in a modern scenario, with scalable size and art direction, authors > have looked for workarounds, script-enhanced or non-native (Flash maps) > solutions. > POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: 1. link boxes and CSS, 2. SVG, 3. <map>, where > 1. CSS has a poor range of shapes > 2. See above for SVG > 3. <area> coordinates are absolutely defined. > PROPOSAL: As SVG map is not viable at all in complex <picture> scenarios, > and not easily viable in simple contexts, authors could benefit from <map> > versatility. So a viable solution *could* be to improve a feature in order > to make it responsive. > The "Map element improvement consortium" is not an organisation I want to > mindlessly support (basically because it doesn't exists). And unfortunately > I tend to be verbose when I start writing. So in my last message I tried to > make it shorter and I chose terms incorrectly. Note that we *should* just be able to use <picture> in SVG, which helps that solution. This is generally useful (we want responsive images inside of SVG, too), and afaict, removes the only objection to SVG. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 18:33:22 UTC