Eric Sink (
Sat, 5 Aug 95 11:07:33 EDT

I've seen some negative comments about MAP (Jim Seidman's draft on client-side
imagemaps). As a fellow Spyglass employee with Jim, I want to give
a little more information:

When Jim created this idea, we had a real customer need for image maps to
work on CD-ROMs. The FIG extension was nowhere near ready for what we
needed. Jim's proposal was unique in that it could be transparently
used with a regular image map at the same time. Dave Raggett and Jim
Seidman discussed the subject, and Dave was not interested in the kind
of modifications that Jim proposed.

We submit it as an I-D as part of our committment to full disclosure to the
open standards process. In most ways that I can see, this process is
fairly distinct from actual WWW implementations, so it is certainly
acceptable for the group to prefer standardization of FIG over MAP.
Spyglass will implement both.

The situation is fairly similar to CENTER and BLINK. I don't see the
participants in this group as terribly enamored with those tags either,
but the reality is that there are a lot of browsers out there which
support them, and they will continue to be used.

The problem with using I-Ds as our way of being open is that they expire.
We may want to start using Informational RFCs for HTML extensions which
are not standards track but are widely used and implemented.