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: XHTML tables


Tobias Reif wrote:

> > and it
> > isn't easy to integrate both CALS and HTML tables at the same time (you
> > will get very relaxed DTD for tables which will allow you to create
> > mangled CALS+HTML tables).
> 
> 1. Specify in the spec (TDG) to not mangle both modles.
> 2. Specify in schema languages more powerful than DTD to not mangle both
> table models (RNG etc).

Yes RNG is cool, but tool support is very bad. Yes there are free
validators, free converters from and to DTD and WXS, but no XML editors
capable of RNG guided editing.
 
> DTD is not very powerful; it always has to be combined with other means.

DTD has enough power to describe document based formats like DocBook or
HTML. DocBook is there for 10 years and DTD was sufficent for its use.
No need for other means.

> And schemas never can save users from doing dumb things anyways.

But can restrict them.

> > And creating two DocBooks -- one with HTML
> > tables and second with CALS ones is also not good idea.
> 
> Probably ...

For sure. People are now confused that there is DocBook, Simlplified
DocBook, WebSite, Slides, SGML/XML versions. In this situation you are
proposing making this list two times longer?
 
> > For these reasons, I think that DocBook should live with
> > CALS tables also in a future. And as there will be more and more WYSIWYG
> > editing tools even in open-source and free shops, there won't be such
> > loud noise against CALS in favor of HTML.
> 
> Believe me, there will continue to be "such loud noise against CALS in
> favor of HTML". People will continue to use non-WYSIWYG editors. People
> will continue to need to write (ad-hoc) tools processing DocBook. New
> users always will be intimidated by CALS tables, and many many new users
> now and in the future are familiar with HTML tables.

And these users are also familiar with HTML inline markup, with HTML
lists markup and ... If someone wants to use HTML, he can use HTML. If
some wants to use DocBook, he can use DocBook. But I don't see any
positive effect in messing up DocBook with HTML markup.

If someone needs some capabilities of DocBook stylesheets (like
chunking) and he wants to use HTML at the same time, he create something
like HTMLBook. HTMLBook can contain elements like book, article and
chapters which can have almost same content model as body element in
HTML.
 
> If the only reason to not include HTML tables are the weaknesses of the
> DTD schema language, then people rightfully will request inclusion of
> HTML tables.

See comment above this paragraph.
 
> And if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you shouldn't call
> the arguments of the other side "loud noise".

I wasn't talking about arguments but about idea of adding HTML tables to
DocBook.

> Hoping requests for inclusion will go away (as you write above) is also
> not a real strategy IMHO.

Well, this strategy works very well in a real world :-)

				Jirka

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek  	                     
  e-mail: jirka at kosek dot cz
  http://www.kosek.cz


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