Re: [dita] Stage One Proposal: Change the specialization base of imagemap

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

[I sent this to Zoe yesterday but had intended to send to the main list]

ï<div> should be the best choice but would need to think it through:

<imagemap> allows <image> and <area>

<area> is currently a specialization of <figgroup>.

<figgroup> is essentially the semantic equivalent to <div> so it would make sense to also make <area> a specialization of <div>.

<div> allows all the elements from which the subelements of <area> are specialized, so that works.

One way to evaluate a specialization design is to generalize it back to the base types and verify that the result is still valid. If it is, then the specialization meets that requirement.

So using <div> for <imagemap> and <area> definitely passes that test.

Then the other question is whether or not the specialization is semantically consistent with the base, which is a more subjective question. But in this case, <div> has no semantic beyond "container" so hard not to be semantically consistent with it. Ditto for <area> specialized from <div>.

Cheers,

E.

--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
 

ïOn 7/8/19, 8:30 PM, "Zoe Lawson" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of zoelawson17@hotmail.com> wrote:

    
    Originally, <imagemap> was a specialization of <fig>. This means you cannot use an <imagemap> directly inside of a <fig>, which makes it complicated to add a title to your image.
    
    
    You can work around this by using a <div> inside of the <fig>, but that seems like an extra layer of complexity.
    
    
    If we change the specialization base of <imagemap> from <fig> to something slightly more generic such as <div>, that may simplify the adding of a title (or other content) around an <imagemap> in a <fig>.
    
    
    I would like some technical assistance determining which element makes the most sense to specialize from.
    
    
    Thanks,
    Zoà Lawson