[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: XHTML tables
At 10:43 2003 03 04 -0600, Alex Russell wrote: >The co-existance problem can look simple in some trivial cases, but it gets >messy in a hurry unless each shared element type has a mode attribute >assigned to it (in which case, we're no better off than with namespace >prefixes). > >I'd love to be wrong about this, but I just don't see an elegant way to >reconcile the two models without namespace prefixes (which are a >non-starter for previously outlined reasons). See [1] for my summary analysis. (Note that when I use the notation such as html:table or cals:table, I am NOT suggesting that namespaces are to be used in the resulting DTD, I am merely using that notation as a convenience in my email to refer to logically different concepts.) It is trivial for an application to tell if a properly marked up table is either a CALS table or an HTML table with no namespaces and no extra attributes. However, it is not possible for a DTD to prohibit markup that would be neither a valid CALS table nor a valid HTML table (i.e., a hybrid table). Such can only be "prohibited" via a statement in the DocBook spec, not via a DTD. (I don't see this as a problem. There are lots of semantically invalid things you can do right now that the DTD cannot catch. Such is the nature of DTDs. But others feel otherwise.) paul [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200212/msg00003.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]