Re: DOCBOOK: XHTML tables

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif at pinkjuice dot com>]

Jirka Kosek wrote:

> I though that this was point (maybe not yours, but othres who proposed
> HTML tables in DocBook) -- allow easy reuse of existing tables in HTML
> and make easier to type tables in DocBook for peoples who know HTML.

One of the points, yes.

> I
> think that learning CALS model is for "common user" easier than learn
> how to use regexps to add namespace prefix.

As I said, you can also use any other automatic tool or do it by hand. 
But obviously, this is one of the drawbacks of using prefixes. As I 
said, each of the different possibilities has its own pro/con balance; 
but each would be OK IMHO. When someone sees copy'n'paste as most 
important, then it's obviously best to not use prefixes.

>>   xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
>>can be set on the root element and/or be set (via "fixed") from the
>>DTD.
>>(see the SVG DTD)
>>
> Fixed attributes can save typing but in a log term this practice won't
> be suitable. Fixed attributes modify infoset and forces you to read
> DTD/WXS when you want to process your document.

Just above, I wrote

"xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
can be set on the root element and/or be set (via "fixed") from the 
DTD." (there's an "or")

Set it explicitly, in the document, eg on the root element.

>Modern schema languages
> like RNG even doesn't support this feature. But yes, meanwhile #FIXED
> is
> a nice trick how to save typing. BTW I'm wondering what will happen to
> XLink when people will start using schema languages without fixed
> feature.

See above.

Tobi

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