Re: Client-Side Image Maps

Jim Seidman (
Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:50:39 EST

As was stated in my proposal, MAPs are intended to be an extension to HTML
2.0 which will fail as gracefully as possible on browsers which don't
support the extension. HTML 2.0-compliant browsers will remain in use for a
very long time to come, and being as friendly to them as possible is, IMHO,
a worthwhile goal.

That said, let me list a few of the advantages of MAPs over FIGs:

1. Flexible backwards-compatibility with HTML 2.0-based browsers.
2. Ability to reuse maps between multiple images.
3. Ability to store maps in files separate from the document, which is
better for some application which dynamically generate images and maps.
It also makes maintenance easier for frequently repeated maps.
4. A browser author can add support for it without the tremendous effort
involved in correctly supporting all of the other aspects of FIG tags.

Incidentally, you mentioned that the GIF replacement includes direct support
for image maps. I've looked back through the past four draft specs for
PNG/PBF and haven't found any references to this, nor have I seen any recent
discussions of it on png-list. I'd appreciate it if you could provide a
pointer to where this issue is being discussed.

Jim Seidman, Senior Software Engineer, Spyglass Inc.