RE: [dita] Explicit Prohibition on Nested Tables?

["Helfinstine, David" <dhelfinstine@ptc.com>]

Greetings,

I am in violent agreement with Chris Nitchie on both accounts (-dita-use-conref-target, and nested tables)

Thanks.

-Dave H.

Dave Helfinstine
dhelfinstine@ptc.com

-----Original Message-----
From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Chris Nitchie
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:21 PM
To: Tom Magliery; Eliot Kimber; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] Explicit Prohibition on Nested Tables?

I don't think we should add anything discouraging about nested tables.
Users clearly want it, many if not most of the tools support it, and the markup allows it. Let's leave this one be.

Chris

Chris Nitchie
(734) 330-2978
chris.nitchie@oberontech.com
www.oberontech.com
 <http://www.oberontech.com/>
Follow us:
 <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech>
 <https://twitter.com/oberontech>
 <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies>
 
 






On 1/16/15, 1:54 PM, "Tom Magliery" <tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote:

>I don't imagine that the writer of that comment on the forum was 
>thinking in terms of the specifics of the OASIS CALS Exchange spec, but 
>more likely in terms of whether the DITA OT supports it (it does), or 
>perhaps another authoring tool (XMetaL does).
>
>I can't speak to DITA's original intent, but I know plenty of XMetaL 
>customers do use nested tables by the technique you mentioned (block 
>element wrapper).
>
>mag
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On 
>Behalf Of Eliot Kimber
>Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 10:47 AM
>To: dita
>Subject: [dita] Explicit Prohibition on Nested Tables?
>
>A comment just came up on the Framemaker 13 prerelease forum to the 
>effect of "DITA allows nested tables so Framemaker should too".
>
>I don't think that assertion is correct. DITA uses the OASIS CALS 
>Exchange model, which explicitly disallows the full-CALS <entrytbl> 
>element. That seems like a pretty clear indication that table nesting is not intended.
>
>However, I couldn't find anything in either the CALS interchange 
>specification or in the 1.2 spec that 100% says "tables cannot nest".
>
>The problem is that the grammars cannot themselves disallow nested 
>tables because <entry> allows block elements that then allow tables (e.g., <p>).
>
>I'm wondering if the language reference for <table> or <entry> should 
>have an explicit "tables may not nest" statement or if the rule should 
>be something like "DITA does not intend tables to be nested. Processors 
>MAY support nested tables. Processing interchange is not guaranteed for 
>documents that include nested tables."?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Eliot
>
><<<<<
>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>Contrext, LLC
>http://contrext.com
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php