At 5/24/2007 09:49 PM, Geoff Pack wrote:
If the image is a map, and you want to link areas of it, then an image
map is the semantically correct solution. Faking them with lists and CSS
is no better than using tables for layout IMHO.
Wouldn't that depend on whether you thought of the map as the
semantic content itself or merely the graphic presentation of a list?
To my surprise, the presentational result might not depend on which
markup is chosen. Undoubtedly the reason Pete chose CSS for the
<http://www.domain.com.au/> job was to make the states highlight on
hover. I was about to say that image map areas wouldn't work for
this because IE6 won't support area:hover, but rereading the HTML
spec I'm reminded that a map can consist of a series of anchors as
well. [1] It's entirely possible to style the Anchors (or AREAs) as
blocks and absolutely position them on the image to make them do
double duty as both image map polygons and sprite hover rectangles.
Of course we're still left facing the sad fact that today's CSS can
manipulate only rectangles and not circles or polygons, so it remains
our noble quest to persuade our respective governments to redraw all
political boundaries rectilinearly.
[1] HTML 4.01 Specification
13 Objects, Images, and Applets
13.6 Image maps
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.6
Regards,
Paul
__________________________
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
