Re: HTML table model suggestion

Terry Allen (
Thu, 30 Mar 95 16:42:03 EST

Bert Bos writes:
| Dave Raggett writes:
| |Paul Grosso wants us to drop a simple format string in favor of
| |a much lengthier way of specifying exactly the same information.
| |For instance:

of course Paul suggests this because it's the current CALS design, not
the best of all possible designs.

| |Given, that the philosophy of HTML is to keep it simple, and that

and let me point out that simplicity is not the only desideratum;
useability is another, and as has been pointed out, there are CALS
tools aplenty.

[ ... ]

| I agree with Dave here:
| - TGROUP and TBODY seem rather redundant. If tables are related, we
| can always put <DIV>..</DIV> around them.

DIV will be uselessly overloaded very quickly. There *is* more
redundancy in the CALS design. Actually, I would want THEAD in
there too, and it could be made doubly omissible, too.

| - Dave's COLSPEC is both more compact and easier readable.

but not by much; I'll take isomorphism with an established model over
this degree of more-compactness.

| - It is useful to distinguish between TH and TD (and easier for the
| style sheet writer).

Absolutely. That's why I'd want THEAD.

[ ...]

| - Using a CLASS attribute to mark a row as header/footer seems
| better than introducing new elements; it simplifies the parser but
| still allows a style sheet to render the row differently.

But once you introduce CLASS, there *will* be usage so widely
varying that you'll never get interoperability out of it. If
you ever want THEAD now's the time to introduce the necessary
structure at the element definition level.

Terry Allen  (   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472
occasional column at:

A Davenport Group sponsor. For information on the Davenport Group see or