[9561] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Why no ![]()
inside ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rainer Klute)
Wed Jan 10 06:08:29 1996
To: Stephen Turner <S.R.E.Turner@statslab.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: klute@nads.de, www-html@w3.org
Reply-To: Rainer Klute <klute@nads.de>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:51:17 +0000.
<m0tZy7h-000PrkC@lion.statslab.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:01:58 +0100
From: Rainer Klute <klute@nads.de>
Resent-From: www-html@w3.org
>Rainer Klute wrote:
>->
>-> >A shorter kludge is <pre><tt><img></tt></pre>.
>->
>-> No, sorry. Since in the PRE element declaration IMG occurs as an
>-> exception, it is not permitted anywhere down in the element
>-> hierarchy inside a PRE element.
>->
>
>That's not true in HTML2. The DTD only lists:
>
><!ENTITY % pre.content "#PCDATA | A | HR | BR | %font | %phrase">
><!ENTITY % pre.content "#PCDATA | A | HR | BR">
><!ELEMENT PRE - - (%pre.content)*>
Oops, yes, you are right of course. I forgot that HTML 3 (whatever
that is, if it is at all :-)) is not upward compatible to HTML 2.
>Why there are two definitions of pre.content I have no idea, though it seems
>the first one should be the correct one -- I want <b> and <i> in <pre> for
>example. (Oh, I could have said that <pre><i><img></i></pre> was an even
>shorter kludge, but it can mess up the interline spacing on Netscape even
>when the image is only 1 pixel high, so I prefer to use two extra characters).
The first entity declaration is in a marked section and active if
%HTML.Highlighting is set to include, which is normally the case.
If highlighting is turned off you can't have fonts and phrases.
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Dipl.-Inform. Rainer Klute NADS - Advertising on nets
NADS GmbH
Emil-Figge-Str. 80 Tel.: +49 231 9742570
D-44227 Dortmund Fax: +49 231 9742573
<http://www.nads.de/~klute/>
