[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Errata in grammar files for <colspec>
I’m wondering if the text of the topic is actually what’s wrong. Looking at the DocBook documentation for colspec, it says for @rowheader value “headers”: “Indicates that row headers are identified by use of the headers attribute on entries in the table.” Which is a sensible default (because it means that if @headers is not specified on entries there are no row headers for that column. However, DocBook 5.1 does not appear to define a default for @rowheader on <colspec>, so probably also correct to remove the default. I think the DITA text should match the DocBook text (assuming that we did not intend to change the meaning of “headers” in this context, which I wouldn’t think we intended). Cheers, E. -- Eliot Kimber http://contrext.com From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com> I was trying out some of the accessibility features added for very complex tables. One of the features is the ability to set colspec/@rowheader="headers" -- doing so indicates that the specified column should be treated as a header for all entries in that row. This enhances the DITA 1.0 level support that just allowed you to designate the first column as a header column. Here's the description of that value from the spec topic: headers Indicates that entries of a column described using the <colspec> element are functionally row headers (for cases with more than one column of row headers). Applies when @rowheader is used on the <colspec> element. So -- in order to indicate that the second column of a table should be treated as the header column, set rowheader="headers" on the <colspec> element that corresponds to column 2.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]