This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: XHTML tables
Jirka Kosek wrote:
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.
I did not suggest to switch to RNG for the main normative schema. I
suggested to stick with DTD for now, nowing that it's quite limited,
and, like every other schema in every other schema lang needs to be
accompanied by specs. Schemas (be it DTD or RNG) alone can't ensure good
authoring.
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.
Then it sure will be no problem to add XHTML tables to the DocBook DTD.
No need for other means.
Alright! You were describing problems with the DTD schema lang, and I
merely suggested alternatives.
And schemas never can save users from doing dumb things anyways.
But can restrict them.
Yes, this works well for most aspects.
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?
No, and never did. Don't try too hard to misunderstand me. I request to
add the XHTML table model to DocBook. I did not request to publish an
additional, separate language.
Only if OASIS won't do that will users need to resort to workarounds
such as extending the DTD themselves. (and they probably will)
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.
Many want to use Docook plus XHTML tables. Not very difficult to
understand. Just as they want to use DocBook plus SVG (see the SVG
Module [1] (also HTML Forms Module, MathML Module); would you tell them
to use SVG instead of DocBook + SVG?
But I don't see any
positive effect in messing up DocBook with HTML markup.
AFAIK, CALS is very complex to write and process ("messy" in your
terms), and has lots of presentational features, which don't belong in
DocBook IMHO. Adding XHTML tables would make DocBook authoring and
processing simpler; nothing messed up.
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.
Now you are proposing to create a new language, which you rightfully
argued is to be avoided.
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.
You wrote
"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. "
which clearly labels all arguments for HTML tables as "noise".
Many much-respected members of the XML and DocBook communities argued
for inclusion of HTML tables in DocBook. (see quotes in the other posts)
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 :-)
Both of you and me live in the real world.
Discussing the options, and listening to users and implementers is
better than calling their arguments "noise", and doing nothing but
hoping for this "noise" to stop.
Tobi
[1] tdg-en-html-2.0.7/tdg/en/html/appc.html#svg.module
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/