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

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:56:41 -0400


Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:56:41 -0400
Message-Id: <l03110702b028c35dc537@[198.77.183.192]>
In-Reply-To: <NTxA04uYO1eF089yn@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 5:39 PM -0000 8/26/97, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
>In article <l03110704b0278cda10e5@[198.77.183.193]>,
>Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I agree. Of course, if you want to go to the logical extreme of
>this argument, then *nothing* can be permitted inside PRE, as even
>a rendering in italics or boldface could affect the preformatted
>appearance.

Well, if you do use <B> or <I> I could see that that might not be a good
idea.  But as <STRONG> and <EM> are both logical, rather than physical,
elements, it is possible for them to appear within PRE tags.  It is up to
the browser or CSS to determine how these elements are rendered--they don't
have to be italic or bold.

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    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. ]
--------------------------------------------------------