[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar2003
Norman Walsh wrote: > The question is, should we be flexible and allow HTML tables in > DocBook so that users migrating to DocBook don't have to do any mental > gymnastics to get their tables working? I'm asking again. Is this mental gymnastics really so hard? I trained many people with former HTML knowledge to DocBook, and they hadn't problems with tables. Is it really so hard to absorb few easy rules? 1. Use row instead of tr 2. Use entry instead of th/td 3. Surround tbody with tgroup and add number of columns here 4. Do colspans in different (and btw more robust) way then in HTML They are quite easy if you compare them to large number of other HTML -> DocBook transition rules: - use para instead of p - use nested sections and title instead of h1/h2/h3/.. - use itemizedlist instead of ul just to name few of them. Transition from HTML to DocBook is not easy, but there are many other places in this process which need more mental gymnastics then table model IMHO. I personally think that allowing HTML tables together with CALS tables will confuse users. Ordinary users are always confused when they are supposed to make decision. Should we make this even harder for them? XML vs SGML, DSSSL vs XSL, lists inside para vs list between para, HTML vs CALS, ... I don't want to take part in this forking ride. To sum it up just for the record (as it seems to me that everything indicate that HTML tables will be incorporated into DocBook): I'm against adding HTML table model to DocBook. Jirka -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://www.kosek.cz
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]