Javascript HTML未正确呈现新行字符？

我正在努力渲染这个场景。当我在Jupyter笔记本上打印时，它工作正常

但当我在Google上呈现相同的html时，这就是结果

我们可以看到，所有

\n

甚至

\t

字符都没有正确呈现。我该如何解决这个问题

可以找到HTML

这是一个较小的可复制示例

<div class=\"judgments\">\n<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court</div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Marappan vs The Deputy Registrar Of ... on 29 September, 2006</div><pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS \n\nDATED:   29/09/2006 \n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON\u0012BLE MR.AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE\nTHE HON\u0012BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nTHE HON\u0012BLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nTHE HON\u0012BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN\nTHE HON\u0012BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN \n\n\nWrit Appeal No.1573 of 1998 \n---------- \n\nK.Marappan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Appellant \n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tVs. \n\n1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,\n    Namakkal Circle,\n    Namakkal - 636 001. \n\n2. The Special Officer,\n    Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank,\n    Vattur Post,\n    Tiruchengode Taluk, \n    Salem District. \t\t\t\t\t         ..Respondents \n\n\nPRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause - 15 of the Letters Patent against \nthe order of the learned single passed in W.P.No.1245 of 1989 dated 12.02.1998. \n\n----------\n\t\tFor Appellant\t\t:: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor M/s.Row &amp; Reddy\n\n\t\tFor Respondent -1 \t:: Mr.R.Viduthalai, \n\t\t\t\t\t\tAdvocate General\n\t\t\t\t\t\tassisted by Mr.G.Sankaran, A.G.P.\n\n\t\tFor Respondent - 2 \t:: Mr.T.Senthilnathan \n\n-----------\n\t\t\t\t\t\nJ U D G M E N T \n</pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">THE HON\u0012BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\n\nA five-Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"/doc/14026/\" id=\"a_1\">M.Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society</a>, 2000 (4) CTC 556:2001 (1) LLJ 285, has held that no writ will lie against a co-operative society, since it is not an instrumentality of the \u0011State\u0012 within the meaning of <a href=\"/doc/609139/\" id=\"a_2\">Article 12</a> of the Constitution of India. \n</p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t2. While hearing the present writ appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition against a co-operative society, the Division Bench {Markandey Katju, C.J. (as he then was) and F.M.I.K.J.} doubting the five-Judge Bench decision, by order dated 9.8.2005, referred the following question to be decided by a Larger Bench.\n</p><p id=\"p_3\">\" Whether the decision of the five-Judge Bench of this Court in <a href=\"/doc/14026/\" id=\"a_3\">M.Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthakam Agricultural Co-operative Society</a>, 2000 (4) CTC 556 : 2001 WLR 1, holding that no Writ will lie against a co-operative society is correct in law?\"\n</p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">Pursuant to the said order, the above question was referred to a Full Bench consisting of three Judges. The Full Bench took the view that it will be open only for a Bench of coequal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of coequal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before the Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law, the correctness of which is doubted. Consequently, the matter has been placed before this five-Judge Bench.\n</p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">3. Before considering the question referred to the Bench, it will be useful to refer to the decision of M.Thanikkachalam's case (cited supra).  It is seen from paragraph-11 of the aforesaid judgment that in view of difference of opinion, a Larger Bench was constituted to answer the question put forth as to whether the decision in R.Thamilarasan, etc. v. Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras and others, 1989 (1) LLJ 588, which got the seal of approval of two Full Benches of this Court required reconsideration.

\nMadras高等法院\n nK.Marappan诉司法部副司法常务官。。。2006年9月29日\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n在马德拉斯高等司法法院审理日期：2006年9月29日，首席大法官P.K.MISRA大法官D.MURUGESAN大法官P.K.MISRA大法官D.MURUGESAN大法官PRABHA SRIDEVAN大法官PRABHA SRIDEVAN大法官M.JAICHANDREN大法官M.JAICHANDREN大法官M\n\n1。合作社副注册官，Namakkal Circle，Namakkal-636 001\n\n2。萨勒姆区塔卢肯德塔卢克市瓦图尔合作农业银行瓦图尔邮政局特别官员\t\t\t\t\t..答辩人\n\n\n原告：根据《英皇制诰》第15条针对1998年2月12日1989年第1245号W.P.No.1245中通过的“学习单曲”命令提出的上诉\n\n------\n\t\t上诉人\t\t：：n.G.R.Prasad先生\n\t\t\t\t\t M/s.Row&；Reddy\n\n\t\t被申请人-1\t：：R.Viduthalai先生\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t由A.G.P.G.Sankaran先生协助\n\n\t\t被申请人-2\t：：t.Senthilnathan先生\n\n---------------n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nJ U D G M E n t\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\P id=“P\n 1”>本法院首席大法官HON U2BLE五庭法官，2000年第554:1号（反恐委员会）（2001年）LLJ 285认为，不会有针对合作社的令状，因为合作社不是印度宪法意义上的国家机构\n
\n
\t2。在审理针对博学的单一法官驳回针对合作社的令状申请的命令而提出的本令状上诉时，分庭法官{Markandey Katju，C.J.（当时的情况）和F.M.I.K.J.}通过2005年8月9日的命令，对五名法官的裁决表示怀疑，将下列问题交由一个较大的法官组裁决。\ n
“本法院五名法官法官在2000年（4）CTC 556:2001 WLR 1中作出的裁定，即不存在针对合作社的令状，在法律上是否正确？\”\n
\n
”，上述问题已提交由三名法官组成的全体法官审理。全体法官认为，只有同等实力的法官才能对先前同等实力的法官所持观点的正确性表示怀疑，因此，可将该事项提交由法定人数大于宣布制定法律的决定的法定人数的法官审理，其正确性受到质疑。因此，这件事已提交给这五名法官审理。在审议提交给法官的问题之前，参考M.Thanikkachalam案的判决（上文引用）将是有益的。从上述判决第11段可以看出，鉴于意见分歧，成立了一个更大的法官组，以回答关于R.Thamilarasan等诉。马德拉斯和其他人，手织机和纺织品总监，1989（1）LLJ 588，获得本法院两个完整法官的批准，要求重新审议。

如何在Jupyter笔记本上打印？你想在谷歌浏览器上打开HTML吗？您可能需要为新行使用换行HTML标记
。新行不会像在常规文本中那样在HTML中换行。这就是

元素的工作。有一些方法可以通过样式（例如，

元素）来解决这个问题。比如说，是的，这是有效的。