Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-html-clientsideimagemap-01.txt

Benjamin C. W. Sittler (
Fri, 4 Aug 95 14:15:28 EDT

Why not use HTML 3-type FIGs instead? They provide many more levels of

fallback, including text-only, non-FIG-supporting clients. With a slight

modification [1] of the HTML 3 FIG definition (found in [2]), support is

provided for image-capable clients which do not support figures. The only

possible advantage I can see in your proposal is the ability to refer to

imagemap definitions stored in a different file. Am I missing something?

[1] The modification to the DTD would allow IMGs to appear inside FIGs.
That way, a non-FIG graphical client could display (possibly ISMAPped)
inline images in addition to text instead of the FIG image with
The cover page of the HTML 3 specification is at

Note: If adding this HTML 3 construct to HTML 2 seems like a good idea

(i.e. a few positive responses from this list,) I could probably
be persuaded to write an I-D.

This is in reply to the Internet Draft at

Benjamin C. W. Sittler
   "I have great confidence in fools -- self confidence my friends call it."
                            --Edgar Allen Poe