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: Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo dot gutentag at sun dot com>
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Cc: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:02:37 -0800
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook
- List-id: <docbook.lists.oasis-open.org>
- References: <87bshknjqi.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Option 2 makes much more sense to me.
Norman Walsh wrote:
>
> See http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=472229&group_id=21935&atid=384107
>
> There is general support in the TC for allowing HTML tables in
> DocBook. It is by far the most common table model, it has the broadest
> support among tools, and CALS tables are a common source of confusion
> for new users.
>
> In broad strokes, the proposal would allow HTML tables in DocBook
> where CALS tables are currently allowed. The content model of TD and
> TH elements in this model would be the same as the content model of
> entry.
>
> Unfortunately, HTML tables and CALS tables share some common element
> names, so they cannot easily coexist.
>
> 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.
>
> In an informal poll, the TC was leaning towards option 2.
>
> Broader input from users and especially tool vendors is solicited.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Extinction, n. The raw material
> http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | out of which theology created the
> Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | future state.--Ambrose Bierce
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
XML Technology Center | Phone: (510) 986-3651
Sun Microsystems Inc. |