The story seems related to the choice of the OASIS XML Exchange Table Model
as the definitive version for DITA.
http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/tm9901.html
In that default DTD, the content model for table is effectively:
...
In the DITA adaptation, the equivalent specialization-enabled declaration
is:
...
Thus, tgroup effectively remains one or more by inheritance from the
Exchange Table Model. Due to the wide use of this model across most XML
DTDs that use tables, we are sort of faced with either changing this design
uniquely for DITA, or with pushing the Why question back to the framers of
the 1999 document. With my DITA specialization hat on, I can see the
rationale of your request. With my Chair hat on, I worry what impact such
change might have on editor implementations that may have somehow built
dependencies on the requiredness of tgroup (ensuring that new tables get a
default setup when created, perhaps) in which the relaxation might affect
how usability is perceived.
Regards,
--
Don Day
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
IBM Lead DITA Architect
Email:
11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758
Phone: +1 512-838-8550
T/L: 678-8550
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
"W. Eliot Kimber"
