- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 08:21:11 -0500
- To: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
- Cc: brian@organic.com (Brian Behlendorf), MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu, www-html@w3.org
In message <29462.9602062006@afs.mcc.ac.uk>, lilley writes: > >Yes, this is a simple addition to make. We have been running such a >modified cgi program since August 95. I have put together a page that >demonstrates this [1] but those of you who are unable to display pages >without images ;-) may prefer to go direct to the explanation [2] which >also has links to download the source. > >I tested this with emacs-w3 (an old version, 2.1.90), lynx (also >old, v2.3), and Netscape 2.0N for X (with inline image loading disabled). > > >[1] http://www.man.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/test/maps.html >[2] http://www.man.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/test/textonly.html I think I'd like to see this sort of thing written up as a W3C tech report. Title might be "HTML Imagemap Recommendations for Information Providers". (It would eventually be released as an informaional RFC, but I don't necessarily want to go through the whole IETF review process for 'recommendations' documents. Of course, at the discrtion of whoever writes the draft, it could be an html-wg work product.) The HTML 2.0 spec specifies a certain syntax, and gives a little bit of semantics, but there's a lot missing in the way of recommended practices. TimBL used to maintain a style guide, but he hasn't got time to keep it up to date. Right now, I think the world gets referred to the NCSA documentation, which hasn't undergone a peer review process (I think?) and hence doesn't always address the minority concerns. W3C's conformance testing efforts[1] are about to heat up, and concise specs on such issues just might begin to have a "force of law" behind them before you know it. [1] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Test/ Dan
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 1996 08:23:14 UTC