Re: DOCBOOK: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo dot gutentag at sun dot com>]

Option 2 makes much more sense to me. 


Norman Walsh wrote:
> 
> See http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=472229&group_id=21935&atid=384107
> 
> There is general support in the TC for allowing HTML tables in
> DocBook. It is by far the most common table model, it has the broadest
> support among tools, and CALS tables are a common source of confusion
> for new users.
> 
> In broad strokes, the proposal would allow HTML tables in DocBook
> where CALS tables are currently allowed. The content model of TD and
> TH elements in this model would be the same as the content model of
> entry.
> 
> Unfortunately, HTML tables and CALS tables share some common element
> names, so they cannot easily coexist.
> 
> There appear to be two solutions:
> 
> 1. Use namespaces.
> 
> 2. Force the user to make a top-level choice by having, effectively,
>    two DTDs. This would mean a document could contain *either* HTML tables
>    *or* CALS tables, but not both.
> 
> In an informal poll, the TC was leaning towards option 2.
> 
> Broader input from users and especially tool vendors is solicited.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Extinction, n. The raw material
> http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | out of which theology created the
> Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | future state.--Ambrose Bierce

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (510) 986-3651
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |