On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 06:01:38PM -0400, Karl Berry wrote: > This isn't valid HTML 4.01 > > What's not valid about <small>? It's also used for @sc.
It turns out there's no problem in general with <small>, just when it's used within a <pre> segment. I was wrong about using it within <code>; there's no problem with that one. The text in a <pre> segment is supposed to be a contant width, and an element like <small> would change that property. The HTML 3.2 spec, at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#pre, says "PRE has the same content model as paragraphs, excluding images and elements that produce changes in font size, e.g. IMG, BIG, SMALL, SUB, SUP, and FONT". The HTML 4.01 specification shows a similar limitation; that spec is at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/. > Anyway, there's nothing deep about the <small>, it was just inserted > because someone (I'm not sure who any more) thought the ... looked > better that way. (See cm_dots in makeinfo/cmds.c.) What do you suggest > be output for @dots (and @enddots)? I recommend suppressing the use of <small> and other elements that change font sizes within <pre> segments. That probably affects more than just @dots. Janis Johnson _______________________________________________ Bug-texinfo mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo
