- From: Abigail <abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 09:35:33 +0100 (MET)
- To: www-html@w3.org
You, Daniel W. Connolly wrote: ++ ++ In message <96Jan9.232901-0700_mst.138878-3+92@amisk.cs.ualberta.ca>, Gerald Os ++ koboiny writes: ++ >Much to my chagrin, it turns out that it's invalid to use <IMG> inside ++ ><PRE> in HTML 2.0. Is there some reason for this? (I guess I'm not asking ++ >if there's some reason it's like this in HTML 2.0, but rather is there ++ >some reason it "should" be this way in HTML?) ++ ++ No -- no good reason, anyway. I think this was on the "to-do" list ++ during the HTML 2.0 review, and I just forgot to do it. I was surprised ++ myself when I went back and realized this change never got made. Hmm, I always thought it was because the unit in <PRE> is characters, and the unit of images is pixels. If I have: <pre> a b <img src = "foo.gif" alt = "xxx"> d 1 2 3 4 </pre> to which should the 4 (vertically) align? I fail to see how something can be "preformatted" (but using my font size) and yet include images whose size bears no relation which the choosen font size. ++ >Would it be possible to get this changed for the next version of HTML ++ ++ Yes. ++ ++ In fact, if anybody feels like cooking up DTDs as candidates for new ++ versions of HTML, please put them on the web and send a note including ++ the address to this list. Well, the 28 March 1995 HTML 3.0 specifically excludes <IMG> from <PRE>: <!ENTITY % pre.exclusion "TAB|MATH|IMG|BIG|SMALL|SUB|SUP"> <!ELEMENT PRE - - (%text)* -(%pre.exclusion)> It always made sense to me... (that is, the exclusion of <IMG> in <PRE>). Abigail
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 1996 03:35:46 UTC