Re: 12-21-95 INSERT draft (Garrett Fitzgerald) wrote:
>> I'd like to add my strong support of the <FIG> client side image-map
>I'm sorry if this has been discussed and I missed it, but why does
> have another client-side map proposal when FIG has been around
>for so long?
>And will Netscape's support for this proposal shift the balance away
>from <FIG>?

	There has been some discussion in this thread, but not a clear
answer to my original post, nor a resolution of the issues raised by
the current INSERT draft.

	That draft has a bad link, "apparently" to the Seidman MAP proposal,
as implemented by Spyglass, Netscape and Explorer, i.e., without taking
into account principles and attributes of the HTML 3.0 draft, which
expired last September, and does not, as yet, have (a) replacement(s)
which encompass or updates all of the markup it had specified.

	More importantly, the INSERT draft does include a DTD for FIG,
which breaks it as a client-side image map handler, without, if MAP
as in the Seidman proposal is indented, a comparably elegant and effective

	What this means, and really does need to be addressed explicitly,
is that clients which took the HTML 3.0 draft "seriously", implemented
it's DTD, including FIG, have been "left in the lurch" since last September,
and as of the INSERT draft release last month face the problem of deciding
with they also should ignore W3C drafts, and retain their implementations
of FIG as in the too long expired HTML 3.0 draft.  ;(  ;(  ;(


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

Received on Friday, 19 January 1996 12:00:38 UTC