[9569] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Why no ![]()
inside ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gerald Oskoboiny)
Wed Jan 10 12:38:12 1996
From: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@cs.ualberta.ca>
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 10:06:13 -0700 (MST)
In-Reply-To: <199601100835.JAA30480@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl> from "Abigail" at Jan 10, 96 09:35:33 am
Resent-From: 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/
