This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook
- From: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:34:36 -0500
- Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook
- List-id: <docbook.lists.oasis-open.org>
- References: <87bshknjqi.fsf@nwalsh.com> <3C07E5DD.68F6F6C2@sun.com>
/ Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@sun.com> was heard to say:
| Option 2 makes much more sense to me.
Why?
My thoughts are:
1. We're moving towards more modular, reusable documentation. Sooner or later,
probably sooner, someone's going to want to include a fragment that uses one
table model along with a fragment that uses the other. And that won't be
possible.
2. This is exactly the problem namespaces are supposed to solve, isn't it? :-)
3. Won't tool vendors have to support mixed namespaces "real soon now"
anyway, for things like XLink, SVG, MathML, etc. So tools will
actually be able to handle this?
| Norman Walsh wrote:
| >
| > See http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=472229&group_id=21935&atid=384107
[...]
| > 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.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | He who fails to become a giant
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | need not remain content with being
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | a dwarf.--Ernest Bramah