Re: IMG in PRE? -Reply

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Charles Peyton Taylor wrote:

> >>> 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.
> >Dan Connolly admits it might have just been an oversight a long
> >time ago. Lots of people have found good uses for IMG in PRE. Why
> >not make it officially valid?
> Because it doesn't work.
> <pre> only works with text, because different hardware
> display images at different relative sizes.   For example,
> you might have an image that is nothing but blank space at
> the beginning of a line, and in your document it would look
> like this in one browser:

Your answer is only half right. IMGs work fine in PRE areas _as long as
the images are all exactly the same size (or are isolated from the text)
and you don't implicitly assume a specific font size for the text_. I was
doing 'pseudo-tables' this way a year and half ago with imbedded images.
Worked fine in everything from lynx to AOL to Netscape to Arena. Now that
TABLEs are actually implemented in nearly all browsers to a minimal
functional level, I don't do it. AOLs currently deployed browser and lynx
are simply not worth the extra coding effort as the only major browsers
that *can't* do tables yet.

Dan - isn't it time to retire the 'Graceful Transition' paper on tables?
The transition (as ungraceful as it was in practice) is for all intents
and purposes done.

Benjamin Franz

Received on Monday, 13 May 1996 16:59:59 UTC