On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 08:13:36AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Karl Berry wrote: > > > This isn't valid HTML 4.01 > > > > What's not valid about <small>? It's also used for @sc. > > > > 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. > > That'd be me: > > 1999-02-18 Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * makeinfo/cmds.c (cm_dots, cm_enddots): Don't produce … for > HTML, as too many browsers don't support it; use "..." in a > smaller font. > > I do think <small>...</small> looks better than just ... Try it.
It's fine except when a fixed-width font is supposed to be used, as in a <pre> segment. Sorry for the confusion; next time I'll look into the HTML specs before sending in a report, rather than afterwards. Janis Johnson _______________________________________________ Bug-texinfo mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo
