On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Andrea Rendine
<master.skywalker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Instead, we start by figuring out what problems need solving.
> Which is what has been done for this subject, I guess.
> PROBLEM: image maps, intended as "shaped link areas related to
specific
> regions of an image" are a fairly requested feature. Unfortunately, as
> current solutions are not responsive and they can't fit to how images
are
> defined in a modern scenario, with scalable size and art direction,
authors
> have looked for workarounds, script-enhanced or non-native (Flash
maps)
> solutions.
> POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: 1. link boxes and CSS, 2. SVG, 3. <map>, where
> 1. CSS has a poor range of shapes
> 2. See above for SVG
> 3. <area> coordinates are absolutely defined.
> PROPOSAL: As SVG map is not viable at all in complex <picture>
scenarios,
> and not easily viable in simple contexts, authors could benefit from
<map>
> versatility. So a viable solution *could* be to improve a feature in
order
> to make it responsive.
> The "Map element improvement consortium" is not an organisation I
want to
> mindlessly support (basically because it doesn't exists). And
unfortunately
> I tend to be verbose when I start writing. So in my last message I
tried
to
> make it shorter and I chose terms incorrectly.
Note that we *should* just be able to use <picture> in SVG, which
helps that solution. This is generally useful (we want responsive
images inside of SVG, too), and afaict, removes the only objection to
SVG.
~TJ
