Re: [docbook-apps] pgwide support with Docbook 5

["Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>]

Hi Barton,

> The reason is that none of those attributes are also attributes of the HTML <table> 
> element. Isn't the whole point of supporting HTML tables in DocBook to re-use the 
> existing HTML table standard?

Not exactly. Here is what the Definitive Guide says (from 
http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/html.table.html):

<blockquote>
HTML tables were introduced in DocBook V4.3 which was not in a namespace and was 
defined normatively with a DTD. DTDs do not support namespaces very well. The 
Technical Committee decided to simply add the HTML element names to DocBook. This 
solution simplified specification, avoided issues of namespace support in DTDs, and 
solved the most compelling use case: cut-and-paste of simple, text-only HTML tables 
into DocBook.
Strictly speaking, it would be incorrect to put these elements in the XHTML namespace 
because the DocBook common attributes are allowed on all of them and the td and th 
elements have very different content models than their HTML counterparts.
</blockquote>

These are not HTML elements, they are DocBook elements whose names happen to match 
HTML element names, and whose attributes and content models are similar, but not 
identical.  The goal was to make it easier for people who are familiar with HTML 
tables to author tables in DocBook.  DocBook does support all the HTML table element 
names and attributes. But *additional* attributes do not break that compatibility.

Also, there is no <informaltable> element in HTML at all. Clearly that one is a 
hybrid.

So if you have a text-only HTML table (no DocBook markup in table cells), you can copy 
and paste it into a DocBook document, but only if it has a caption element. Without 
caption, it would need to be pasted as an informaltable, since caption is required on 
DocBook's table (HTML).

> The proof is in the DocBook XSL.

The DocBook Technical Committee would object strenuously to that statement! The XSL is 
supposed to follow the schema, not lead it.  8^)

In any case, I filed a bug report and this will be resolved at the April DocBook TC 
meeting.  Feel free to provide more input.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barton Wright" <bwright@streambase.com>
To: "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>
Cc: <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Chris Ridd" <chrisridd@mac.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] pgwide support with Docbook 5


> Bob,
>
> We have come to opposite conclusions from the same facts. It appears more logical 
> that the four attributes you list are deliberately missing from informaltable-HTML 
> and are incorrectly present in table-HTML and should be removed.
>
> The reason is that none of those attributes are also attributes of the HTML <table> 
> element. Isn't the whole point of supporting HTML tables in DocBook to re-use the 
> existing HTML table standard?
>
> The proof is in the DocBook XSL. Try making a DB 5 document that contains a 
> table-HTML using the pgwide="1" attribute. The document will validate fine, but on 
> transformation to HTML, no pgwide attribute is passed to the HTML <table> element, 
> and the table shows up with its default width. By contrast, add width="100%" and you 
> get the pgwide effect as desired.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 6:13 PM
> To: Chris Ridd
> Cc: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] pgwide support with Docbook 5
>
> Thanks for the additional info. It seems informaltable (HTML) is missing pgwide, 
> tabstyle, floatstyle, and orient, which are available on table (both HTML and CALS) 
> and informaltable (CALS).  I think this may be an oversight, so I filed a bug report 
> regarding the missing table attributes on informaltable (HTML). We will see what the 
> DocBook Technical Committee says.
>
> Bob Stayton
> Sagehill Enterprises
> bobs@sagehill.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Ridd" <chrisridd@mac.com>
> To: "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>
> Cc: <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] pgwide support with Docbook 5
>
>
>>
>> On 19 Mar 2011, at 01:31, Bob Stayton wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> pgwide is permitted on table, both CALS and HTML tables. Here is the definitive
>>> guide:
>>>
>>> http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/cals.table.html
>>>
>>> I looked in the DTD and the RelaxNG schema, and see pgwide available on table. 
>>> How
>>> did you conclude that it was not permitted?
>>
>> XXE reported it as invalid.
>>
>> I think we are using HTML tables, not CALS tables.
>> <http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/html.informaltable.html> has no pgwide.
>>
>> Maybe HTML tables were a tactical mistake on our part!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>