This is the mail archive of the docbook@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list for the DocBook project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: XHTML tables


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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]