Re: Client-side imagemap I-D

CN=Bruce Kahn/O=Iris@IRIS (iris!CN=Bruce_Kahn/
Fri, 3 Feb 95 15:50:57 EST

On Feb 1, Joe English wrote:
>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.

Putting the MAP in an external file would be great for older brain dead
browsers but it would make the savvy ones do 2 connections/retrievals
needlessly. Since that extra connect/retrieval can be saved by putting the
MAP(s) into the HEADer then Id say thats a better way to implement it.
(Thats not to say that supporting MAPs in external files should be poo-poo'd,
they can be quite useful for 'shared' maps).

My take on the description of both MAP and AREA is that there is nothing
preventing them from being placed _anywhere_ in the document. Since MAP only
contains AREAs and AREAs are not containers, there is no real hard reason to
place MAPs in the HEADer. A browser that wont grok MAP & AREA wont have
anything to render... Still, if it would give everyone warm fuzzies I can go
either way.