[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [docbook-tc] The CALS + HTML table model
At today's telcon, I took the ACTION item to summarize the "ambiguity points" of the "union CALS+HTML" table DTD module I sent to the list earlier [1]. HTML doesn't have a tgroup element whereas CALS requires it as the child of the table element. So you can tell which table model you have by seeing if the <table> element has a <tgroup> child or not. The content model for <table> is basically (ignoring titles and indexterms and such): (tgroup+ | (caption, (col*|colgroup*), thead?, tfoot?, (tbody+|tr+))) So there is no possible ambiguity at that point. Both models have <thead>, <tfoot>, and <tbody>. In the HTML case, the content model for each is (tr+) and in the CALS case, the content model for each is basically (row+). So the content model in the union DTD module for all three is basically: (tr+ | row+) So that is one point of ambiguity where someone could mistakenly have, say, a thead in a CALS table containing tr+ instead of row+. I believe this is really the ONLY point of potential content model mixing. As far as attributes, there are the following situations: html:table has the following attributes not recognized by the CALS model: summary border rules cellspacing cellpadding bgcolor width cals:table has the following attributes not recognized by the HTML model: tabstyle tocentry shortentry pgwide orient colsep rowsep Both html:table and cals:table share the frame attribute but do not share any values (the HTML DTD says they did this on purpose!): html: "void|above|below|hsides|lhs|rhs|vsides|box|border" cals: "top|bottom|topbot|all|sides|none" For all of thead, tfoot, tbody, HTML has an "align" attribute that would be ignored by the CALS model. Furthermore, in both models, they all have a valign attribute and in both models, the values "top|middle|bottom" are allowed, but in the HTML model, an additional value of "baseline" is allowed that would be ignored by the CALS model. I believe that is the full set of issues where there is any possible confusion between the two models that the proposed DTD module could not catch. I still feel we would be doing DocBook users a service to allow them to have both CALS and HTML tables in a document, and I do not feel the above issues--which we would prohibit via the documention but could not prohibit via the DTD--are so problematic as to cause us to forbid the use of HTML tables. paul [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200204/msg00002.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC