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

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:21:24 -0400


Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:21:24 -0400
Message-Id: <l03110704b0278cda10e5@[198.77.183.193]>
In-Reply-To: <cVdA04uYOl8R089yn@htmlhelp.com>
To: galactus@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Inline elements with %block as content vs. PRE

At 6:56 PM -0000 8/25/97, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
>In article <3.0.3.32.19970824040252.011a6de4@emf.net>,
>"E. Stephen Mack" <estephen@emf.net> 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                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------