XHTML tables (was:~ TC Minutes:18 Mar 2003)

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Norman Walsh wrote:

 > | 4b. HTML tables in DocBook
[...]
 > | Nancy: Can we take a straw poll on whether people are willing to
 > | include HTML tables or not?
[...]
 > | Norm: If we used the Strict HTML, then you wouldn't get the
 > | presentational attributes.
 > |
 > | Straw Poll: Are you willing to include XHTML tables in DocBook along
 > | the lines of Paul's earlier proposed DTD changes?
 > |
 > | Steve Cogorno   N
 > | Paul Grosso     Y
 > | Dick Hamilton   Y
 > | Nancy Harrison  Y
 > | Scott Hudson    Y
 > | Mark Johnson    Y (with reservations)
 > | Bob Stayton     Y
 > | Norman Walsh    abstain

Wow! This is great news. I'll implement it right away :) If I come 
across any issues, I'll post them.

 > | ACTION: Paul to review how his proposal would change if we went with
 > | Strict instead of Transitional.

I'm in favour of Strict, but since Transitional is a superset AFAICS, I 
could author using the Strict subset. But on the other hand I think that 
DocBook should stay semenatic and structural as far as possible, and not 
include new presentational stuff.

My personal list of preferences:
* best:
   include XHTML 1.0 Strict (or 1.1) table model
* also OK with me:
   include XHTML Transitional table model
   (although I don't see a technical reason,
   and although XHTML is going in
   a different direction (see 1.1))
* not OK with me :)
   don't include (X)HTML tables at all

Tobi


-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/