Re: Browser differences within <PRE> tags...

Glenn Vanderburg (glv@utdallas.edu)
Fri, 1 Jul 1994 12:50:01 -0500


To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Browser differences within <PRE> tags... 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Jul 1994 11:42:58 -0500 (CDT)"
             <9407011642.AA05581@ulua.hal.com> 
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 12:50:01 -0500
From: Glenn Vanderburg <glv@utdallas.edu>
Message-Id: <94Jul1.125123cdt.13615@utdallas.edu>

> In message <94Jul1.095733cdt.13627@utdallas.edu>, Glenn Vanderburg writes:
> >He finally solved the problem by enclosing the whole thing, <INPUT>
> >tags and all, inside a PRE element.  ...
> >
> >The current HTML 3.0 DTD explicitly permits this, and the current HTML 2.0
> >DTD (which, I am aware, does not necessarily reflect reality) explicitly
> >prohibits it.
> 
> I think you're mistaken.

I think so, too.  Sorry for being hasty.

> What evidence did you base this conclusion on?

I based it on looking at the old html-0 DTD which appears near the end
of the HTML 2.0 spec.  Oops.  I scanned, found the content model and
the definition of the entity it contained, and thought I was done.

INPUT is still not in the content model of PRE, but PRE is in the content
model of FORM, and INPUT is an inclusion of FORM, so it's valid in PRE
(and many other places) as well, as long as the whole thing is ultimately
within a FORM.

> [Whether it should or not is open to debate... ]

This is certainly true, especially given the way it's specified.  An
INPUT element within an H1, forsooth!  OK, maybe that's not *completely*
farfetched ...

However, not to lose the main point of John Lewis' original message ...
different browsers certainly don't agree on the handling of markup within
PRE elements.

---glv