Re: DOCBOOK: shading cells [was: DocBook Technical Committee MeetingMinutes: 18 Feb 2003]

[Bob Stayton <bobs at caldera dot com>]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:41:49PM -0600, Paul Grosso wrote:
> At 14:35 2003 02 18 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----
> >
> >|      685511 shading/color support for tables
> >
> >For Scott's purposes, the PIs are probably a workable solution.
> >
> >BS: People could use roles for this and then customize the stylesheets.
> >
> >SC: We use processing instructions as well.
> >
> >BS: It's not really part of the semantic model of the element. There's
> >no indication in the actual element that there's a semantic reason for
> >it to be shaded. I can easily see role used as an alternative for
> >this.
> >
> >NW: For the DocBook stylesheets, you'd have to use two PIs so it might
> >make sense to have a common PI for both HTML and FO.
> >
> >SC: Maybe it makes sense to define some common processing
> >instructions.
> >
> >NW: Maybe this would be a chance for us to say, "here use this one".
> >
> >ACTION: Norm to put releasein 4.3 or 5.0 or whatever's next on the agenda.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow what the discussion concluded, and I'm unclear on 
> what the action item is.  Could someone clarify?

The conclusion was that changing the DTD was not necessary
to support table cell shading. It seems that role attributes
and PIs were sufficient.

The action item had nothing to do with that topic.
I asked Norm to add an item to the next agenda about
when we will be releasing some of the changes we
have adopted in a new version of the DTD.

-- 

Bob Stayton                                 400 Encinal Street
Publications Architect                      Santa Cruz, CA  95060
Technical Publications                      voice: (831) 427-7796
The SCO Group                               fax:   (831) 429-1887
                                            email: bobs@sco.com