This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the DocBook project.
Re: Re: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook
- From: "M. Wroth" <mark at astrid dot upland dot ca dot us>
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>, docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 14:16:17 -0800
- Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: RFE 472229: Allow HTML Tables in DocBook
- List-id: <docbook.lists.oasis-open.org>
- References: <3C07E5DD.68F6F6C2@sun.com> <email@example.com><3C07E5DD.68F6F6C2@sun.com>
Those of us who continue to use SGML are kind of forced into opt 2, are we not?
I'd prefer to avoid further divergence between the two versions (SGML/XML).
At 03:34 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Eduardo Gutentag <firstname.lastname@example.org> was heard to say:
>| Option 2 makes much more sense to me.
>My thoughts are:
>1. We're moving towards more modular, reusable documentation. Sooner or later,
> probably sooner, someone's going to want to include a fragment that
> uses one
> table model along with a fragment that uses the other. And that won't be
>2. This is exactly the problem namespaces are supposed to solve, isn't it? :-)
>3. Won't tool vendors have to support mixed namespaces "real soon now"
> anyway, for things like XLink, SVG, MathML, etc. So tools will
> actually be able to handle this?
>| Norman Walsh wrote:
>| > See
>| > 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.
> Be seeing you,
>Norman Walsh <email@example.com> | He who fails to become a giant
>http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | need not remain content with being
>Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | a dwarf.--Ernest Bramah
Mark B. Wroth