Re: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 24 January 2007

["Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>]

Hi Paul,
Some responses below.

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
> To: "DocBook Technical Committee" <docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:20 AM
> Subject: RE: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 24 
> January 2007
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 2007 January 24 19:41
> > To: DocBook Technical Committee
> > Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [docbook-tc] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting
> > Minutes: 24 January 2007
> >
> > DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 24 January 2007
> > =============================================================
> >
> > Cals table model does allow info, because Cals controls
> > everything inside tgroup,
>
> I don't understand what this is saying.  I think it is
> saying that the CALS table model only limits what can
> go inside tgroup (not inside table) and info would go
> outside tgroup, so having DocBook allow info inside
> a table that contains a CALS tgroup is ok.
>
> If that's what the minutes are trying to say, ok, but
> it's a bit hard to read them that way, so I wanted to check.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

> > and HTML table has no tgroup.
> >
> > The HTML DTD does not include an info element.
> >
> > Bob: DocBook adopted some HTML element names, but made them
> > into DocBook elements, and the table cell can contain
> > non-HTML elements,
> > so they are not actually HTML tables.
>
> I'm not sure if I disagree with this statement or just
> think it is beside the point.  I sure thought the idea
> was to allow HTML tables within DocBook, so I'm not
> exactly happy with what Bob says above.
>

I think it is misleading to say we allow HTML tables in DocBook.
You can't cut and paste an arbitrary HTML table into DocBook
because the cell content models differ.  Also, in DocBook5
the HTML table elements are in the DocBook namespace, not
the XHTML namespace.  I think what we did was to allow authors
to use familiar HTML table element names in DocBook, but they are
not the same elements.  The DocBook TC controls the degree to
which they are compatible. If we choose to make them highly
compatible, that's fine. I think we are exploring the
boundaries of that compatibility in this discussion.

> >
> > Scott: info would not be displayed by default.
> >
> > Norm: concerned that it may break table editing tools, or
> > production tools after handoff from one group to another.
>
> It sure will.
>
> >
> > Bob: avoid using out info if it breaks your tool. Unlikely that
> > having info in the schema would break the tool.
>
> "If it hurts, don't do it."  Not something I'd like to explain
> to my DocBook users, and not a good way to make a DocBook DTD
> decision if you ask me.
>
> >
> > Decided to postponse the decision.
> >
> > ACTION: Scott to repost to the list.
> >
> >       1627845  please allow caption in db.cals.table
> >
> > There are two kinds of caption in DocBook. In formal elements,
> > it is used for a longer description of the element. In
> > HTML tables, caption is used as the table title.
> > Proposal: add descriptive caption to cals table and informaltable,
> > in parallel with other formal elements.  Approved.
> >
> > It was also noticed that the content model of the HTML
> > table caption element was just text.  It should be
> > equivalent to title.  Proposal: change HTML table caption
> > content model to match other titles.  Approved.
>
> Well, that's not an HTML caption and therefore no longer
> an HTML table.  You've just broken the idea that we allowed
> HTML tables in DocBook, and you've broken a lot of tools
> and processes.

The content model of caption in HTML is %Inline; which permits
all kinds of inline HTML elements in addition to text.
I'm sure you aren't proposing that we add img, a, sub
and other HTML elements to the content model of HTML caption.
The restriction of HTML caption in DocBook 5 to just text
seems to be incompatible with the functionality of that element
in HTML.

I think this is the same kind of comparison of the td and
entry content models.  When you get down though the table
elements to the actual content, then we have to go with
DocBook content, not HTML content.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
DocBook Consulting
bobs@sagehill.net