Re: IMG in PRE? -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor writes:

> >>> Keith Instone <> 05/12/96 09:57am >>>
> >With HTML 3.2 being ironed out, is it time to allow IMG in PRE?
> >I read the discussion on www-html from back in January on this
> >topic and still do not see a good reason to exclude IMG from
> >within PRE.
> I remember this conversation, and I remember Abigail 
> pointing out what was wrong with it.

I brought this up in January, and I believe I answered all concerns
raised at the time.

In short:

   - it's current practice (this is used all over the place to align stuff
     without using tables; for an example, see ),

   - it's extremely useful (,

   - it "works" with every browser that I know of.

This should be enough to make it standardized behavior.

Below is my reply to Abigail's concerns; a selective archive of the
thread is also available at:


Subject: Re: Why no <IMG> inside <PRE>?
From:   Gerald Oskoboiny <>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:06:13 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <>

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:

  a b <img src = "foo.gif" alt = "xxx"> d
  1 2 <img src = "bar.gif" alt = "yyy"> 4

and "foo.gif" is exactly as wide as "bar.gif", the behavior is well-defined,
and extremely useful. (as in, for instance, <URL:>.)

p.s. anyone know why this is being echoed on www-talk?
Gerald Oskoboiny  <>

Received on Monday, 13 May 1996 15:34:01 UTC