OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Conversion between table models

FWIW, it should be pointed out that the full CALS table model has
basically been obsoleted by the OASIS Exchange Table Model and XML
Exchange Table Model subsets:


...which I think are in part intended to do away with many of the
"idiosyncratic and complex things that usually are bad typesetting
practice and almost never can be presented effectively on-screen".

Maybe another thing to consider is existing transformation support,
especially for taking tables to print. You might save some time by
taking a look at the modular DocBook stylesheets.[1] Those support
transformation of CALS tables/Exchange model subset to HTML and to
print (via both DSSSL and XSL-FO). (The default model in DocBook 4.1
is full CALS, with a PE switch provided for using the Exchange model
instead. But the default in DocBook 5.0 will be the Exchange model).

Note that if you go the XSL-FO route, maybe it won't matter much which
table model you use, because none of the widely-used XML-FO->PDF/print
engines (open source or commercial) seem to be able to get tables
right yet. (I've heard Arbortext's XSL-FO implementation works better,
but they offer no downloadable demos, so it's hard to try it out.)

Matthias, the other thing you mention -- "a PDF-oriented table
model/approach" -- I don't think it's clear how you mean to relate
that to XML-based authoring (not clear to me at least.)

[1] http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/xsl/

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes:

> At 12:05 PM 16/08/01 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> >I have to decide according to which table model my company wants our
> >customers to produce XML data. Basically, we would prefer CALS tables, but
> >FO prefers   at least, this is the way it appears to me at the moment   a
> >PDF-oriented approach.
> <opinion class="religious">
> The HTML table model is inherently better.  The only things that
> CALS can do that HTML can't are idiosyncratic and complex things
> that usually are bad typesetting practice and almost never can
> be presented effectively on-screen.
> I've often thought that HTML per se was a pretty ordinary
> document markup language.  The table model is the exception;
> it's comprehensible, flexible, powerful, and just kind of
> generally does what you need.
> </opinion>
> <question class="genuine-interest">Why on earth would you want to 
> use the CALS table model?</question> -Tim
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

Michael Smith          mailto:smith@xml-doc.org
xml-doc                http://www.xml-doc.org/
see also: Logopoeia    http://www.logopoeia.com/