Re: [docbook-tc] The CALS + HTML table model

[Scott Hudson <Scott.Hudson@Sun.COM>]

Paul, et al,

What would be valid content inside of the <td> elements? Are we opening the door to allow HTML content, such as <P>, <A HREF>, <IMG>, etc. which would be valid HTML table contents?

Importing HTML content may be more problematic this way, instead of just running XSLT on content that someone wants to import into a document, mapping HTML tags to Docbook and CALS.

Best regards,

--Scott

Paul Grosso wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>