Re: Inline elements with %block as content vs. PRE

Jordan Reiter (
Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:21:24 -0400

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:21:24 -0400
Message-Id: <l03110704b0278cda10e5@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
From: Jordan Reiter <>
Subject: Re: Inline elements with %block as content vs. PRE

At 6:56 PM -0000 8/25/97, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
>In article <>,
>"E. Stephen Mack" <> wrote:
>> And I understand why OBJECT, BUTTON, and IFRAME should be considered
>> inline elements (for the same reason that IMG is an inline element).
>I don't. What would be wrong with defining OBJECT and IFRAME to
>be block-level elements? Text flow around the rendered element
>content could be handled by a stylesheet, or even analogous to
><TABLE ALIGN=LEFT>, which is block-level too.
>Alternatively, why should PRE be able to contain OBJECT? That hasn't
>been explained back when HTML 3.2 added APPLET, which unlike IMG was
>permitted inside PRE. All three elements basically need to occupy
>some amount of pixels when rendered as intended, and that conflicts
>with the concept of PRE. At least, that's what I was given as the reason
>why PRE may not contain IMG.

I personally think that if the point of pre is to offer pre-formatted fixed
width text, then almost *nothing* has a place in between <PRE> tags other
than text and purely textual inline elements, such as <STRONG>, <EM>,
<SAMP>, etc.

[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[                 ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]