Re: [docbook] strict versus transitional XHTML tables

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif at pinkjuice dot com>]

Norman Walsh wrote:


> You could. But I've seen lots of tables where there are color and
> other style choices that are much more aesthetic than they are
> logical.


Thus the code expressing this doesn't belong into DocBook documents, IMHO.


> I think the point Paul made in another message is relevant: tables
> already contain a fair amount of presentational information (column
> width, spans, column rules, row rules, borders, etc.)


How does that make bgcolor better?


> You could argue that role="glump" implied certain border settings or a
> particular column width,


XHTML 1.0 Strict has width and border attributes on element table. The 
designer would then write .glump {color: pink} etc.

> but users would find this cumbersome.


So the consequence is be to add lots and lots of presentational 
elements/attributes to DocBook?

Yes, separating structure and semantics from styling is cumbersome, but 
has proven advantages. More and more (web) developers use XHTML 1.0 
Strict or 1.1 plus CSS2, and enjoy the benefits.

If you want to offer users convenient options, then I can understand 
that. I advise against it though; it took (X)HTML many years to evolve 
towards being non-presentational.

Tobi


--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/