Re: HTML 3.2: PRE should not exclude IMG

T. Joseph W. Lazio (lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu)
Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:50:19 -0400


From: "T. Joseph W. Lazio" <lazio@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:50:19 -0400
Message-Id: <199606031750.NAA18799@ism.tn.cornell.edu>
To: boo@best.com
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <v03006f09add8ba69b42a@[205.149.180.135]> (message from Walter Ian Kaye on Mon, 3 Jun 1996 08:57:05 -0700)
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2: PRE should not exclude IMG

>>>>> "WIK" == Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> writes:

WIK> At 3:05p +0200 06/03/96, Abigail wrote:
>> Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>>
>> [ About allowing <ING> inside <PRE> ]
>> 
>>> The whole issue is rapidly becoming irrelevant anyway since the
>>> use of images in PRE is a hack to work around the lack of deployed
>>> tables - a situation that has all but disappeared now as even AOL
>>> is rolling out a table capable browser - leaving Lynx as the only
>>> browser with any significant share that _cannot_ do tables. Tables
>>> are *much* superior in achieving page layout control in general.

>>  TeX and PostScript are even better.

WIK> But they require separate, huge programs (seen Ghostscript or
WIK> Acrobat?)  for rendering.

 Probably part of Abigail's point.  To do real page layout is
difficult and (often) requires huge programs.

WIK>  Having this in HTML saves a lot of overhead and time, and is
WIK> inline. What I do on my "Directory of Files" page would be quite
WIK> ridiculous to do in PDF!

 In any case, here's another consideration regarding <IMG> in <PRE>.
Many of the current browsers stick in an image icon when running with
image-loading turned off, *even* if the author has specified ALT text.

-- Joseph