- From: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@cs.ualberta.ca>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:06:13 -0700 (MST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
Abigail writes: > Daniel W. Connolly wrote: > ++ > ++ Gerald Oskoboiny 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 guess that would be "undefined", but, if you have: <pre> a b <img src = "foo.gif" alt = "xxx"> d 1 2 <img src = "bar.gif" alt = "yyy"> 4 </pre> and "foo.gif" is exactly as wide as "bar.gif", the behavior is well-defined, and extremely useful. (as in, for instance, <URL:http://sunsite.unc.edu/>.) Gerald p.s. anyone know why this is being echoed on www-talk? -- Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@cs.ualberta.ca> http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/
Received on Wednesday, 10 January 1996 12:08:42 UTC