[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook
/ Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@sun.com> was heard to say: | Option 2 makes much more sense to me. Why? My thoughts are: 1. We're moving towards more modular, reusable documentation. Sooner or later, probably sooner, someone's going to want to include a fragment that uses one table model along with a fragment that uses the other. And that won't be possible. 2. This is exactly the problem namespaces are supposed to solve, isn't it? :-) 3. Won't tool vendors have to support mixed namespaces "real soon now" anyway, for things like XLink, SVG, MathML, etc. So tools will actually be able to handle this? | Norman Walsh wrote: | > | > See http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=472229&group_id=21935&atid=384107 [...] | > There appear to be two solutions: | > | > 1. Use namespaces. | > | > 2. Force the user to make a top-level choice by having, effectively, | > two DTDs. This would mean a document could contain *either* HTML tables | > *or* CALS tables, but not both. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | He who fails to become a giant http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | need not remain content with being Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | a dwarf.--Ernest Bramah
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC