[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: XHTML tables
Tobias Reif wrote: > > Jirka Kosek wrote: > > > How then you want to distinguish between CALS/HTML model, if many > > element names are same (table/tbody/thead/tfoot)? > > This has been answered in my previous posts. The XHTML table elements > would be in their own namespace; the DTD, not knowing about namespaces, > would distinguish them by prefix. Well DocBook and namespaces... You should study DocBook TC meeting minutes more carefully. For several reasons (mainly DTD compatibility) plugin fullfledged namespaces into DocBook isn't as easy as it should/could/??? be. AFAIK TC was considering adding HTML tables in same namespace (ie. no namespace) as rest of DocBook elements. If I should go more deeply, having HTML tables in a separate namespace will be realy overkill from document authoring perspective. You will either need to prefix all HTML table elements and you wouldn't be then able to cut'n'paste from HTML. Or you will use default namespace for table element, so there won't be need for prefixing, but then you will be forced to change default namespace for table cell content. And this will be hassle as table cell can contain mixed content. > > <grin>But remember, I can always spend 250 USD reserved for holidays as > > annual OASIS fee and vote against adding HTML tables!</grin> > > This is one of the reasons why I won't continue the discussion with you. Take it easy and read also markup, not just element content. This was joke. Really. I know several people from TC personally and I know that they will decide responsibly weighting all pros and cons. > I can understand that if you ran out of arguments you have to look for > other means, namely threatening to throw $s at the decision, but then I > will have to leave you at that level, and refuse to join you. Do as you want, but I have a lot of arguments against HTML tables in DocBook. But it is you who hadn't answered my questions which led to some conclusion and summarizations: --- snip from previous mail --- If I understand your point, you are proposing to add HTML tables because they are easier to author than CALS ones? Then may I ask you, how many people using DocBook do you know and how many people you trained in using DocBook? I'm doing commercial DocBook training and I'm also teaching basics of DocBook as a part of my XML course at university. Till today I think that I had something between 100-200 DocBook students. They had many problems with DocBook markup and its "philosophy", with processing and so on, but CALS tables wasn't problem at all. Just tell them, use <row> instead of <tr>, <entry> instead of <th/td> and surround it with <tgroup> with column count. This is very easy to understand, I don't see any complexity in CALS here. If you are speaking from position of implementor who has some problems processing CALS tables (yes, getting colspec from namest/nameend isn't trivial) I'm sorry but I can't take this into account. Computers and technolgies in general should serve to their users not to their developers. ------- Jirka P.S. For everyone else: I know that this discussion is getting quite tedious, but at least TC will have some input from users. Which is not case for all issues. :-( -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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]