RE: Client Side vs. Server Side Image Maps

Using this technique properly in HTML 4.01 will propvide for a text-based set
of alternative links, as well as image map links.. HTML 4.01 was altered from
HTML 4.0 to make it legal to provide both area elements and a elements as
content for the map (something which in pratice worked already).

I don't know how many or what browsers implement the attributes shape and
coords on the a element. It works on the iCab browser for Macintosh, and a
test is available from their website - - as part
of the tests they offer. (They are using object, and hide the map as part of
object content).


Charles McCN

On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Jon Hanna wrote:

  > > The <area> element must contain "alt" information which enables
  > > them to be used with non-graphical browsers.
  > You can also use <a> elements, instead of <area> elements, which
  > will  work on even the oldest of browsers.  I believe some recent
  > browsers have broken support for this, but it might only be Amaya
  > that has the problem.
  Does Amaya treat it as a link without an area (linking the whole
  image), or as no link, or worse?

  The definition of the <a> element for IE5[1] doesn't list coords or
  shape as attributes. Since IE4+ is the most commonly used graphical
  browser their absence on the msdn site would suggest that the <a>
  element can't be used in this way by this browser.


  gpg: Warning: using insecure memory!
  gpg: Signature made Fri Feb  9 04:06:50 2001 EST using DSA key ID BB912350
  gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found

Charles McCathieNevile  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 00:15:08 UTC