HTML未正确呈现新行字符？

Question

我正在尝试渲染following HTML。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

正如我们所看到的，所有的\n甚至\t字符都没有正确呈现。我该如何解决这个问题

HTML可以在here中找到

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.