This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: [docbook] strict versus transitional XHTML tables [was: DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar 2003]
- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso at arbortext dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:27:52 -0600
- Subject: Re: [docbook] strict versus transitional XHTML tables [was: DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 18 Mar 2003]
- References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030318134740.01c0c7e0@172.27.10.30><874r60o54y.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com><87of48wxm9.fsf@nwalsh.com><87u1e2jhuu.fsf@nwalsh.com><87of48wxm9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
At 21:11 2003 03 18 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote:
>At 14:38 18/03/2003 -0600, Paul Grosso wrote:
><snip/>
>>Personally, I'd have a hard time taking background color and fixed
>>height rows away from users.
>
>Heck, why not Paul. Docbook fully supports that separation?
How is the author supposed to indicate to the DocBook stylesheets
what color background they would like for a given cell? Would
you feel that <td role="green-background"> is more in keeping
with the DocBook precedent?
>> While I could live with omitting some
>>of the presentation attributes, that seems too confusing. Since tables
>>by definition already have a fair number of presentation attributes even
>>in the "strict" version, I see no harm in using the transitional version
>>of the XHTML 1.0 table model [2].
>
>I'd support strict anytime.
What harm do you see in having a bgcolor attribute on
table cells in the version of the HTML table model that
DocBook might incorporate?
paul