DOCBOOK: Re: subsetting: excluding CALS table

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> was heard to say:
|  >  but that didn't make it through the TC.  So as things stand now,
|  > it's not going to happen.
|
| Will the reasons/arguments be published?

Sigh. The minutes don't seem to be too clear on that. My bad.

There were two arguments that seemed to sway the TC:

1. That allowing both models would open the possibility (in a
   DTD-based DocBook validator) of totally incoherent tables,
   for example a table with a CALS thead and an HTML tbody.

2. One of the use cases for adding HTML tables was cut and paste.
   Bob collected evidence that suggests most HTML tables have other
   markup in them (A's, SPAN's etc.) that wouldn't be valid anyway so
   cut and paste wouldn't often work.

I'm not personally worried about the cut and paste issues. Users can
fix the other markup if they do cut and paste. Mostly what HTML tables
buys is the "familiarity" of the model and some common presentational
idioms.

The former point concerns me even less since RELAX NG has no trouble
with parallel models :-)

As Bob points out, we didn't really close the issue. Paul was unable
to attend the January telcon where we initially made the decisions.
And he missed the February telcon too, so I guess this will come up
again this month.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | A philosophical contempt of life
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | is no guarantee of courage in the
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | face of death.--Gustave Vapereau
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE+ZJzNOyltUcwYWjsRAswXAJ9gg2QZUl5fCAckDoeK8FiMptgJ/wCfTUfu
/9DXTk50Hj4WTgD3+is0OMA=
=YRvF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----