IMG in PRE? -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor (CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil)
Mon, 13 May 1996 11:13:35 -0800


Message-Id: <s1971975.075@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 11:13:35 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
To: instone@cs.bgsu.edu, www-html@w3.org
Subject:  IMG in PRE? -Reply

>>> Keith Instone <instone@cs.bgsu.edu> 05/12/96 09:57am >>>
>With HTML 3.2 being ironed out, is it time to allow IMG in PRE?
>I read the discussion on www-html from back in January on this
>topic and still do not see a good reason to exclude IMG from
>within PRE.

I remember this conversation, and I remember Abigail 
pointing out what was wrong with it.

>Dan Connolly admits it might have just been an oversight a long
>time ago. Lots of people have found good uses for IMG in PRE. Why
>not make it officially valid?

Because it doesn't work.

<pre> only works with text, because different hardware
display images at different relative sizes.   For example,
you might have an image that is nothing but blank space at
the beginning of a line, and in your document it would look 
like this in one browser:

        We get all lined up, 
he said we get all lined up,
Two red circles and a big black spine.

and yet on another browser it looks like this:

   We get all lined up, 
he said we get all lined up,
Two red circles and a big black spine.

(I wonder if anyone will recognize the song?)

Since all spaces and letters in a monospaced font
are always the same relative size, formatting works
in <pre>.  Add images, and all is screwed.

BTW: why not use <TT> instead of pre?  What is it that
you're looking for in <pre> that you can't do with
<tt>?

>Keith