One could have relative mappings (I think) if the client provided the
server with the context URL in the coordinate request, *or* if the
client expanded relative forwarding addresses in its current context,
but X-Mosaic, for example, doesn't seem to do this.
I can see some advantages in having the server do mapping, but I think
URL mapping should also be specifiable in HTML, so the client
can do more sophisticated (not to mention efficient) mapping. For
example, the following:
<img src="sample.gif" ismap>
might have an alternate representation which could be completely
interpreted by the client without involving (twice!) a (possibly very
<map src="sample.gif" rect="http://somewhere/something.html 0,0 65,15"
rect="parent.html 66,0 120,15"
rect="#TOP 180,0 200,15">
I'm sure there has been some discussion of this in the past, and I'm sorry
I missed it. Am I laboring under some misconceptions? Are there good reasons
why the client should not do mapping?
Thanks for any replies...
-- wa | Wayne Allen, EINet - firstname.lastname@example.org FAX: (512)338-3897 | MCC/ISD, 3500 West Balcones Center Dr, Austin, Tx 78759 (512)338-3754