On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, fantasai wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > > Yup, it is indeed nice; if image maps had been designed that way from the > > start it would make sense. But it's not _that_ much nicer than <area>, which > > we could define as allowing: > > > > <object data="foo" usemap="#foo"> > > <map id="foo"> > > <ul> > > <li><area coords="..." href="..."><a href="...">...</a> > > ... > > > > ...which isn't much worse, and has the very important benefit of actually > > working in IE6. > > And the perhaps less important disadvantage that it's impossible for a > machine to warn against the lack of alt text. With both <area> and <a> > in HTML 4, the spec was able to require 'alt' attributes on <area>, > because, given <a coords="..."> to fill the mixed coords and fallback > role, <area> was not intended to be used in conjunction with other > fallback content. In what you're proposing, <area> also takes the role > of <a coords="..."> and therefore takes no 'alt' attribute. The end > result is, there's no way to know if the author actually provided alt > text or is just throwing <area> into a mix of random block content.
Indeed. Not a huge problem, IMHO. > Another thing to think about: afaict, the HTML 4 spec doesn't say > whether or how the image map coordinate system scales when an image is > stretched or shrunk via CSS. Fixed in HTML5. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
