So do I (for what it's worth)
> > An example of invisible/see-thru buttons overlaying an image -- face.gif
> > is visible, and has two invisible area oriented anchors pointing to
> > eyes.gif and mouth.gif respectively. Probably unnecessary, but WIDTH &
> > HEIGHT could be specified to handle scaling. Also, perhaps <FIGA> should
> > simply be <A>. :
> >
> > <FIGURE SRC="http://sesame-st.org/whatis/face.gif" TYPE="image/gif"
> > WIDTH=100 HEIGHT=100>
> > <FIGA HREF="http://sesame-st.org/whatis/eyes.gif" TYPE="image/gif"
> > x0=20 y0=10 x1=80 y1=30>
> > <FIGA HREF="http://sesame-st.org/whatis/mouth.gif" TYPE="image/gif"
> > x0=40 y0=70 x1=60 y1=80>
> > <FIGCAP>Spy a face</FIGCAP>
> > </FIGURE>
>
> Looks good to me. Two comments: my gut feeling is that coordinates
> should be in pixel space, and that if the browser scales the image it
> should readjust any transmitted coordinates to match when the user
> actually selects something. And, I think it should be possible
> to specify more than one rectangle per "FIGA" (e.g...
>
> <FIGA HREF="http://sesame-st.org/whatis/mouth.gif" TYPE="image/gif"
> COORDS="40-60,70-80;90-100,120-130">
>
> ...or something similar).
>
And if you could add a keyword like TRANSPARENT=0 to specifiy that the
color with index 0 should be transparent I would be even more happy.
This would allow very easy creation of a HREF that is *exactly* only to
mouth and not some collection of rectangles!!!!!
And it's easy for the server too: only one rectangle (the size of the image)
and it only needs a check for the color, if it is not the transparant color,
then follow the link.
It also allows for non-rectangular images inside a document (allthough the
bounding box would be rectangular.
Alternatively, one could send a simple b/w image to specify the
mouth *exactly* and don't use transparant at all
- frans
