>
> Paul Grosso writes:
>
> > As Daniel points out, the CALS model has tfoot before tbody:
> >
> > <!ELEMENT tgroup - o (colspec*, thead?, tfoot?, tbody) >
> >
> > This is to allow implementations to "pick up" the tfoot without
> > having to scan a potentially very long table (I've seen CALS tables
> > that were 20 pages long) since one might want to present the tfoot
> > at the bottom of each page of the table.
>
> But do we need to worry about printed tables when we are defining a markup
> for an electronic publishing medium, i.e., there is no definition of a page?
Are you sure such a definition won't be proposed soon ??? I am quite
certain that pages will be a subject of discussion in the next months.
> I like having the table footer defined at the end of the table body because
> it seems more natural to me, especially when I am authoring a *small* table
> by hand or via an SGML editor.
Hmmm. THis argument is not valid is you use a SGML editor for authoring.
In that case, you don't see the structure; only the software has to deal with it.
If you are authoring by *hand*, well, I guess your case is incurable ;-)
More seriously, do you really want to change one single thing in the CALS table
definition *just* because it's more natural ? Do you really want to remove a
full compatibility with existing CALS documents *just* for this difference ???
The game is not worth the candle...
Regards,
</Daniel>