Re: Conversion between table models

[Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org>]

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:

  http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/tablemodels.shtml

...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/
    http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/dsssl/


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/