Paul Grosso wrote: >> The >> XHTML table model could be added as well. It could be in it's >> own namespace, or in DocBook's. >> > I agree. But the TC just decided against this.
You mean right now? Minutes ago? This is sad news.
> But "including the XHTML table model" while not removing the CALS > table > model and still only having one DocBook DTD implies allowing both > kinds of tables in a document.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about mixing both model's elements in one table.
> Which is just what I was suggesting > but that didn't make it through the TC. So as things stand now, > it's not going to happen.
Will the reasons/arguments be published?
>> P.S. Excluding CALS tables in some future version would have one >> advantage: New tools could support 100% DocBook (including tables >> etc) without having to deal with the complex CALS table model. >> > That's not an advantage for users, especially those with existing > docbook > documents!
I'm aware of the fact that it would be a disadvantage for people with DocBook documents using CALS tables. But in the lifetime of a language, there can be cuts.
Process old content with old tools, or update old content (via some tool, but this could be lossy), process new content with new tools. But anyways, I don't think that CALS tables *must* be removed. People can disallow them locally (by subsetting the schema).
> While I appreciate your point about tools and implementors > (I'm an implementor too), it is generally more important to make > users life easier, not implementor's lives. That's why I think we > should allow both kinds of tables.
OK, so there are at least four people in favour of adding XHTML tables to DocBook:
You, me, Norm (I think), Eve Maler, probably many more. What can we do? Simply publish DocBook+XHTMLTables? Simply use them, since they are in their own namespace? Write an XSLT transforming DocBook+XHTMLTables to DocBook(+CALSTables)?
The latter would allow people to author using simple XHTML tables, but feed CALS to validators and transformers. This translation could be (nearly) lossless, AFAICS.
Tobi
-- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
