[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] strict versus transitional XHTML tables [was: DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar 2003]
Paul Grosso wrote: > I'm generally a fan of separating format from content too. It's the best strategy in most scenarios, yes. Mixing them without a real reason is almost never a good idea. > But tables are by definition presentational. I disagree. Tabular data marked up as table with purely structural and semantic markup makes a lot of sense, and is usable, and can be accessible. > I mean, if > you're going to be black and white, you should argue against > table markup of any kind. I can't follow your logic here, at all. > As it stands, the XHTML strict table model includes attributes > for both vertical and horizontal cell alignment (as just one > example), so it's hard to be black and white here. Given how > much presentation XHTML strict already includes, I'm arguing > that making users use role="glump" instead of bgcolor="green" > does more harm than good. What harm does it do? td.glump {background-color: green} seems very fine to me. What's the requirement for <td bgcolor="green"/> in either DocBook or XHTML? Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]