XHTML tables (was:~ TC Minutes:18 Mar 2003)

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif at pinkjuice dot com>]

Norman Walsh wrote:

> | 4b. HTML tables in DocBook
[...]
> | Nancy: Can we take a straw poll on whether people are willing to
> | include HTML tables or not?
[...]
> | Norm: If we used the Strict HTML, then you wouldn't get the
> | presentational attributes.
> |
> | Straw Poll: Are you willing to include XHTML tables in DocBook along
> | the lines of Paul's earlier proposed DTD changes?
> |
> | Steve Cogorno   N
> | Paul Grosso     Y
> | Dick Hamilton   Y
> | Nancy Harrison  Y
> | Scott Hudson    Y
> | Mark Johnson    Y (with reservations)
> | Bob Stayton     Y
> | Norman Walsh    abstain

Wow! This is great news. I'll implement it right away :) If I come 
across any issues, I'll post them.

> | ACTION: Paul to review how his proposal would change if we went with
> | Strict instead of Transitional.

I'm in favour of Strict, but since Transitional is a superset AFAICS, I 
could author using the Strict subset. But on the other hand I think that 
DocBook should stay semenatic and structural as far as possible, and not 
include new presentational stuff.

My personal list of preferences:
* best:
  include XHTML 1.0 Strict (or 1.1) table model
* also OK with me:
  include XHTML Transitional table model
  (although I don't see a technical reason,
  and although XHTML is going in
  a different direction (see 1.1))
* not OK with me :)
  don't include (X)HTML tables at all

Tobi


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