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
hotzones.
[2] http://www.hp.co.uk/people/dsr/html/html3.dtd
The cover page of the HTML 3 specification is at
http://www.hp.co.uk/people/dsr/html3/CoverPage.html
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
ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-html-
clientsideimagemap-01.txt
--
Benjamin C. W. Sittler
"I have great confidence in fools -- self confidence my friends call it."
--Edgar Allen Poe
mailto:bsittler@nmt.edu http://nmt.edu/~bsittler/