Re: DOCBOOK: Re: XHTML tables

[Alex Russell <alex@netWindows.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 06:58 am, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> >/ Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> was heard to say:
> >| P.S. For everyone else: I know that this discussion is getting quite
> >| tedious, but at least TC will have some input from users. Which is not
> >| case for all issues. :-(
>
> In that case, simplicity is a virtue. DocBook should have exactly one
> table model. Two is one too many. I vote for keeping the one we have.
> When I wrote my last book the style sheets seemed to do a more than
> adequate job of converting the CALS tables to HTML.

While I like HTML tables, I tend to agree on this point. DocBook isn't 
XHTML, and that's OK. If we're going to move to XHTML tables, we should do 
it wholesale and depricate CALS tables. Obviously, this isn't an option, so 
I think that XHTML tables aren't really an option at this point either.

The co-existance problem can look simple in some trivial cases, but it gets 
messy in a hurry unless each shared element type has a mode attribute 
assigned to it (in which case, we're no better off than with namespace 
prefixes).

I'd love to be wrong about this, but I just don't see an elegant way to 
reconcile the two models without namespace prefixes (which are a 
non-starter for previously outlined reasons).

- -- 
Alex Russell
alex@netWindows.org
alex@SecurePipe.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+ZNfQoV0dQ6uSmkYRAuDDAKCoUMJG5vQk19yd5prF0DCIBSGp/ACfZN7b
BAJa8aBqE2aP7B+TUD89Ydc=
=LDb2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----