 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.17005ab86702672c9896ed@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge
<lpv### [at] gmx de> wrote:
> Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
> block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
<br> tags don't belong inside a <pre> block. It is "pre" as in PREformatted.
So why would anyone add *formatting* tags while at the same time saying it is
preformatted? I would recommend to learn more about <pre> tags or use a
WYSIWYG editor :-)
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c964e9a@news.povray.org>, tho### [at] trfde says...
> <br> tags don't belong inside a <pre> block.
Maybe it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but it is legal syntax.
The reason I'm using a <pre> is because Netscape 4 had some problems when
I tried to replace the <pre> with a <div> or <p>, so I left it that way.
> It is "pre" as in PREformatted.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that additional formatting isn't
allowed.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.17007534bd17b8a59896ee@news.povray.org> , Lutz-Peter Hooge
<lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Maybe it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but it is legal syntax.
Indeed, the DTD allows it. Probably it is for backward compatibility also I
don't know many browsers that support(ed) it...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:42:18 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > I'm using IE5.
> > Take a look at urls:
> > result of your script: http://www.bmt.com.pl/Poligrodzianie/sigs_ie5.png
>
> Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
> block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
I'm no good with english langauge details but I feel it can depend on
interpretation of specification. We can read at
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-BR
"The BR element forcibly breaks (ends) the current line of text."
But what it should do when there is a break by <BR> already ?
When you write <B><B>word</B></B> is this word more bold ?
I suggest to use different handling of line breaks.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lutz-Peter Hooge" <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:MPG.17005ab86702672c9896ed@news.povray.org...
>
> Thanks. It really seems to be a bug in IE, it seems that inside a <pre>-
> block it interprets multiple <br> Tags as if there where only one.
>
IIRC (and ignoring the oddity of having html tags within a <pre> block), that is
the correct behaviour. Multiple <br> or <p> tags should collapse. You need to
put a between each <br> if you want them maintained.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <soud9ucn05tt3h9qbsuiup1im475juefct@4ax.com>, abx### [at] babilonorg
says...
> "The BR element forcibly breaks (ends) the current line of text."
> But what it should do when there is a break by <BR> already ?
But IMO breaking a line also creates a new (empty) line.
This is how it works everywere else, and the specification doesn't say
in HTML it should behave different.
Also, for the P element the specification explicitly says that empty
blocks should be ignored. It does NOT say this for BR.
Furthermore I don't see a reason why an empty line should not be allowed
(multiple <BR> tags are the only way to achive it)
And last: all browsers (at least those I have here) do interpret multiple
BR's as expected. IE does it too, except if inside a PRE block.
I've now removed that silly <pre>, the problem I had with NN4 without it
is gone, probably fixed by some other changes I did before.
So I hope it will now work correctly everywere.
> When you write <B><B>word</B></B> is this word more bold ?
Thats a completely different problem (the BR's were not nested).
The correct question would have been:
If you write <b></b><b/>word</b>, should the user agent render the first
B block (containing zero characters) bold, or just skip it? ;-)
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <MPG.17017ad24611f7c09896ef@news.povray.org>, lpv### [at] gmxde
says...
> If you write <b></b><b/>word</b>, should the user agent render the first
That should be <b></b><b>word</b> of course.
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:42:29 +0100, Lutz-Peter Hooge <lpv### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > "The BR element forcibly breaks (ends) the current line of text."
> > But what it should do when there is a break by <BR> already ?
>
> But IMO breaking a line also creates a new (empty) line.
line _of text_ ?
> This is how it works everywere else, and the specification doesn't say
> in HTML it should behave different.
I know only one popular markup language used to specify hierarchy of documents
so I can't compare. Putting one line break is important for text
hierarchy/meaning. Putting two line breaks is text formatting and text
formatting isn't part of document herarchy so no need to aware about formating
behaviour (It's just an idea of explanation - i'm also confused).
> And last: all browsers (at least those I have here) do interpret multiple
> BR's as expected. IE does it too, except if inside a PRE block.
Yes, that's the hint it can be a bug. But we can't be sure. Anyway I again
suggest different line break handling. In particular simple "\n" is valid in
<pre> and even use less bits of transfer :-)
> So I hope it will now work correctly everywere.
"The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be
experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser
settings." :-(
> If you write <b></b><b/>word</b>, should the user agent render the first
> B block (containing zero characters) bold, or just skip it? ;-)
No. The error should be delivered by mail to designer ;-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <m8ne9ussrad7im0bagk2kt0fipepfjtpph@4ax.com>, abx### [at] babilonorg
says...
> hierarchy/meaning. Putting two line breaks is text formatting and text
> formatting isn't part of document herarchy
That is a point.
But I really think, if multiple br's were supposed to be ignored, than
specification would explicitly say that, like it does for <p>.
> Anyway I again
> suggest different line break handling. In particular simple "\n" is valid in
> <pre> and even use less bits of transfer :-)
Now, that I took that out, you want it back ;-)
No, the reason why I originally used <br>'s instead of \n inside a <pre>
block was that Netscape 4 ocassionly ignored the \n, I assume it was
confused by the <span> elements, but these are needed for the
highlighting...
I really think the way it is now is the cleanest and most compatible.
If someone actually finds a (not too exotic) browser that doesn't like
the line breaks as they are now, I'll replace it with <br>
But I really don't want to add a space where there wasn't one in the
original source, unless it really is necessary.
> "The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be
> experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser
> settings." :-(
Unfortunately there's nothing I could do about that (but here it works).
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ingo" <ing### [at] homenl <mailto:ing### [at] homenl>> wrote in message
<news:Xns### [at] povrayorg>...
> It does not deal with nested multiline comments in the right way.
What do you mean "the right way"? It seems that POV doesn't support nested
multiline comments.
Example, please, if possible.
> It has problems with a < preceded by a comma (no coloration)
Thanks, should be a bug.
> It has sometimes problems with the {}
Example, please, if possible.
I also have found one - "\"" is not handling correctly.
Thank you for testing.
>It all works now:
><http://members.home.nl/seedseven/povsdl2html.py>
That's always fine to have alternatives :)
I hope this option will be in POV.
Regards,
Gleb
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
