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: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar2003


And more 2 cents...

Having followed this thread all the way, I can still see no gain in having 2 alternative table models in docbook.

Docbook has already so much markup that it is pretty hard for a beginner to get started. Having different markup to achieve the same result is even more confusing. I strongly discourage any such ambitions.

Previous mails have shown the different markup of the 2 table models. To me as the naive user, they look pretty much the same. I guess, from the functionality's standpoint, one model is as good as the other. Differences seem to be rather academic.

So, if the TC decides to switch over from CALS to XHTML, that's fine with me. Staying with CALS is also fine with me. But incorporating both models into Docbook I perceive as blurring clarity. I'm fine with having both models for a transitional time, if it is decided to switch over.

Introducing inconsistency is something we should avoid. User expect structure. So, as Jirka pointed out, if we use <title> to markup the title of figures, examples and various other elements, then users also expect to use <title> to markup the title of tables. The same is true for <caption>, of course. The XHTML table model doesn't allow this. So the question poses itself, whether - if the TC decides to incorporate XHTML tables - they should be integrated as is, because everybody else is using them. Or whether they shall be adopted to docbook's markup flavour to be consistent with the rest and yet enjoy a familiarity with HTML authors.


Patrick




Dave Pawson schrieb:
At 17:54 18/03/2003 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:


The question is, should we be flexible and allow HTML tables in
DocBook so that users migrating to DocBook don't have to do any mental
gymnastics to get their tables working?


If (possibly a big if with elder docbook users?) the harm wouldn't be too great,
how about a stated intent to move to html type tables, perhaps n versions
into the future?


regards DaveP.




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