[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] CALS+HTML Table Model
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 11:02:12AM -0600, Paul Grosso wrote: > Unfortunately, I will have to miss tomorrow's rescheduled > docbook tc call due to a family emergency. > > The key thing on the agenda for which I might have input > is the question of tables. As Norm's noted in the agenda, > I've provided my input. I still think the merged model is > a good plan, and given that I will have to miss the telcon, > I'm taking the opportunity to recap my thoughts here. > > While it is true that including a "merged table model" in the > DTD would mean that some semantically invalid tables would pass > DTD validation, this argument doesn't hold weight for me. There > are lots of semantically invalid tables the DTD allows right now > if you consider all the semantic constraints on the various > elements and attribute values. For example, it's easy to say > you have a 4 column table and then put in 5 entries. And it's > easy to give the colwidth a completely invalid value. We all > know that the DTD cannot guarantee a valid table already. And > it is clear that the most practical way to create a table is > to use a tool that goes way beyond DTD constraints to ensure > the creation of valid tables. > > The key reason for allowing a document to mix tables is > that there are tools that create valid HTML tables and valid > CALS tables so a user is not unlikely to have some of each. > It seems we would be doing the user community a service if > we allow them to include the tables that they already have in > their DocBook documents. > > It is true that HTML tables whose table cell contents include > HTML element markup couldn't be incorporated directly into a > DocBook document without some modification. However, I would > guess that over 80% of all such tables do not contain internal > markup, and for the 20% that do, it is much simpler to change > a few <p>'s to <para>'s or whatever than it is to convert the > entire table structure from HTML to CALS. > > In summary, I think including a merged table model provides > more user benefits than disadvantages, and I think we would > be doing the DocBook user community a service to do this. Well, I was a bit skeptical that only 20% of HTML tables have other markup. So I ran a little perl program through all the doc HTML files installed under /usr/share/doc on my Linux system. Here are the numbers. I found 7,116 HTML files that contained 32,443 tables. 2,531 of those tables (8%) contained <H1> through <H5>, so I eliminated those on the assumption they were page layout tables and would not be converted to DocBook. Of the remaining 29,912 tables, 28,517 (95%) of them had HTML markup other than table tags. Here are the most popular tags: 90,655 <A> 13,133 <IMG> 11,433 <B> 10,103 <SMALL> 9,645 <STRONG> 9,362 <FONT> 8,912 <UNDERLINE> 5,568 <BR> 3,205 <DIV> 2,608 <I> I'll admit that this kind of sampling can't possibly be applied to all situations, but it does give an indication that HTML markup is pretty common in tables. -- Bob Stayton 400 Encinal Street Publications Architect Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Technical Publications voice: (831) 427-7796 The SCO Group fax: (831) 429-1887 email: bobs@sco.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC