LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave HTML-WG
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: Re: Client-side imagemap I-D
From: Joe English <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:[log in to unmask]
Date:Wed, 1 Feb 95 19:02:18 EST
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (39 lines)




[log in to unmask] (Jim Seidman) wrote:

> I'd appreciate it if you could go into more detail on how HTML 3's
> backwards-compatibility is better. [...]

HTML 3 uses <A> to define areas, so by default older 
browsers would render the alternate text as a link.
It would be badly formatted, but the links would all 
be accessible.

> [...]  One note on the AREA element and the ALT tag
> - the reason to do this rather than have AREA be a container is to improve
> the quality of backwards compatibility.  If AREA were a container, there
> would be no way for an older browser to know not to render that markup.

But if the <MAP> were in an external document, 
older browsers would never even see the markup,
since they don't understand USEMAP.  If you
allowed <MAP>s to appear in the <HEAD>, (working)
2.0-compliant browsers should also ignore it.

Re-reading 2.3, it looks like this proposal does offer
more flexibility wrt. backwards compatibility than HTML 3.
It just wouldn't automatically let users see all the
links like <A>s in <FIG>s would, but that's probably
of dubious utility anyway; a backup ISMAP server 
(which I don't *think* HTML 3 would allow, not sure)
is a better approach.


--Joe English

  [log in to unmask]




Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main HTML-WG Page

Permalink



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager