Re: DOCBOOK: XHTML tables

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Jirka Kosek wrote:


> But HTML table model in DocBook breaks backward compatibility


Excluding CALS tables would make current content (using CALS tables) 
invalid. But this is not necessary.

Simply adding HTML tables would not break anything. Adding the HTML 
table model is just like adding some new elements to DocBook, which 
happens with (nearly) each release I would think.

> and it
> isn't easy to integrate both CALS and HTML tables at the same time (you
> will get very relaxed DTD for tables which will allow you to create
> mangled CALS+HTML tables).


1. Specify in the spec (TDG) to not mangle both modles.
2. Specify in schema languages more powerful than DTD to not mangle both 
table models (RNG etc).

DTD is not very powerful; it always has to be combined with other means.
And schemas never can save users from doing dumb things anyways.
The DTD probably could not save authors from mixing both models, and it 
also couldn't save authors from writing stuff like 
<keycap>joystick</keycap> or <postcode>post($this)</postcode>.

> And creating two DocBooks -- one with HTML
> tables and second with CALS ones is also not good idea.


Probably ...

> This will
> confuse users.


Yes, but it's not necessary.

> For these reasons, I think that DocBook should live with
> CALS tables also in a future. And as there will be more and more WYSIWYG
> editing tools even in open-source and free shops, there won't be such
> loud noise against CALS in favor of HTML.


Believe me, there will continue to be "such loud noise against CALS in 
favor of HTML". People will continue to use non-WYSIWYG editors. People 
will continue to need to write (ad-hoc) tools processing DocBook. New 
users always will be intimidated by CALS tables, and many many new users 
now and in the future are familiar with HTML tables.

If the only reason to not include HTML tables are the weaknesses of the 
DTD schema language, then people rightfully will request inclusion of 
HTML tables.

And if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you shouldn't call 
the arguments of the other side "loud noise".
Hoping requests for inclusion will go away (as you write above) is also 
not a real strategy IMHO.

Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/