RE: [dita] Meeting Minutes 7/27/04 -- DITA Technical Committee

["Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>]

> From: Larsen, Seraphim L [mailto:seraphim.l.larsen@intel.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2004 July 27 12:12
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dita] Meeting Minutes 7/27/04 -- DITA Technical Committee
> 
> Meeting Minutes 7/27/2004 -- DITA Technical Committee 
> 

>     2. Review/approve minutes from 20 July
>         - 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200407/msg00040.html
>             - In the namespace discussion, it should have said that
>               Mary McRae is "perfectly happy with a URI namespace",
>               not an "HTML namespace".

Actually, the phrase is "an http URI namespace". 


>     039 Unassigned -- Find more information comparing the CALS and
>         HTML table models.   >>> There was some discussion on the
>         list, and Don will post a URL to a discussion on the DocBook
>         list, so consider it closed as of 7/27/04.
> 

I already provided an informal summary at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200407/msg00043.html

I think Don asked me to provide a URL to the DocBook TC discussion 
about CALS and HTML tables, but I just don't know what he wants.
I checked my archives, and I don't see any discussion that compares
the two table models (but I could have missed it).  The DocBook TC
had users that wanted to be able to include both CALS and HTML tables
in the same source document, so we decided to augment the DocBook DTD
so that DocBook's <table> element's content model could be satisfied
by either a CALS or HTML table.  But I don't recommend this for DITA.

Here are some pointers to a couple threads that might be somewhat
relevant:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200212/msg00003.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200212/threads.html#00111

paul