On 11/07/2014 09:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:35 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: >> I also think it should be (B), since the meaning of the coordinates >> in the imagemap shouldn't change as a result of CSS styling of the >> image. > > Note that as Daniel pointed out it for legacy reasons already does. > <img height/width> and CSS height/width are the same. Not perpetuating > that further makes sense though.
I'm actually not so sure I agree (about not perpetuating that further). The "width" & "height" legacy requirement basically ends up meaning that imagemap coordinates use the <img>'s content-box as their coordinate space. In a More Perfect World, it'd arguably be more useful for specific imagemap coordinates to reliably to map to specific places in the image data (regardless of height/width), but it seems we've already lost that possibility. So, for now, we just have one useful assumption that we can make about these coordinates: they use the <img>'s content-box as their coordinate space. I don't think we should let object-fit/object-position break that assumption, or else we risk making these coordinates completely incomprehensible / unusable. So, I'm now favoring option (A) from my original email. (See my reply to David for more thoughts on this.) ~Daniel