Re: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar2003

[Patrick Eisenacher <eisenacher@fillmore-labs.com>]

And more 2 cents...

Having followed this thread all the way, I can still see no gain in 
having 2 alternative table models in docbook.

Docbook has already so much markup that it is pretty hard for a beginner 
to get started. Having different markup to achieve the same result is 
even more confusing. I strongly discourage any such ambitions.

Previous mails have shown the different markup of the 2 table models. To 
me as the naive user, they look pretty much the same. I guess, from the 
functionality's standpoint, one model is as good as the other. 
Differences seem to be rather academic.

So, if the TC decides to switch over from CALS to XHTML, that's fine 
with me. Staying with CALS is also fine with me. But incorporating both 
models into Docbook I perceive as blurring clarity. I'm fine with having 
both models for a transitional time, if it is decided to switch over.

Introducing inconsistency is something we should avoid. User expect 
structure. So, as Jirka pointed out, if we use <title> to markup the 
title of figures, examples and various other elements, then users also 
expect to use <title> to markup the title of tables. The same is true 
for <caption>, of course. The XHTML table model doesn't allow this. So 
the question poses itself, whether - if the TC decides to incorporate 
XHTML tables - they should be integrated as is, because everybody else 
is using them. Or whether they shall be adopted to docbook's markup 
flavour to be consistent with the rest and yet enjoy a familiarity with 
HTML authors.


Patrick



Dave Pawson schrieb:
> At 17:54 18/03/2003 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> 
> 
>> The question is, should we be flexible and allow HTML tables in
>> DocBook so that users migrating to DocBook don't have to do any mental
>> gymnastics to get their tables working?
> 
> 
> If (possibly a big if with elder docbook users?) the harm wouldn't be 
> too great,
> how about a stated intent to move to html type tables, perhaps n versions
> into the future?
> 
> regards DaveP.
> 
>