Re: Why no <IMG> inside <PRE>?

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Wed, 10 Jan 1996 03:26:35 -0500


Message-Id: <m0tZvrg-0002UVC@beach.w3.org>
To: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@cs.ualberta.ca>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why no <IMG> inside <PRE>? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 1996 23:26:44 MST."
             <96Jan9.232901-0700_mst.138878-3+92@amisk.cs.ualberta.ca> 
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 03:26:35 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <96Jan9.232901-0700_mst.138878-3+92@amisk.cs.ualberta.ca>, Gerald Os
koboiny writes:
>My HTML validator, <URL:http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/validate.cgi>,
>uses <IMG>'s inside <PRE>-formatted text to show where errors occur within
>the HTML source text. To see a sample validation run with errors, look at
><URL:http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/validate.cgi?url=http://www.w3.org/
>pub/WWW/MarkUp/>. :-)
>
>Much to my chagrin, it turns out that it's invalid to use <IMG> inside
><PRE> in HTML 2.0. Is there some reason for this? (I guess I'm not asking
>if there's some reason it's like this in HTML 2.0, but rather is there
>some reason it "should" be this way in HTML?)

No -- no good reason, anyway. I think this was on the "to-do" list
during the HTML 2.0 review, and I just forgot to do it. I was surprised
myself when I went back and realized this change never got made.

>Would it be possible to get this changed for the next version of HTML

Yes.

In fact, if anybody feels like cooking up DTDs as candidates for new
versions of HTML, please put them on the web and send a note including
the address to this list.

For example, see:

http://ogopogo.nttc.edu/spec/html/modular-dtd.html

Dan