xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [proposal] Better look and feel
Date Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:14:39 GMT
Mike Pogue wrote:
> 
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
> > > If they are "upward compatible" changes that don't break anything, I
> > > have no objection to trying them out in the main style for the xml
> > > site.  Just remember that every single feature that is added can also be
> > > just another thing that has to be learned by a new user.  Docbook is
> > > *immensely*  complicated, even though I'm sure that *every single new
> > > feature* seemed
> > > like a Good Idea at the time.
> >
> > Right. This is why I removed the HTML4-like table and used a much
> > simpler one (but still a little more powerful than yours).
> 
> We picked the HTML4 style of tables, because it did the job (mostly),
> and there was no learning curve (everybody already knows how to use
> them).  There seemed to be no new semantic distinction that we were
> trying to make, so no need to change the tag names.
> 
> This will be an interesting area to discuss...what semantics are missing
> from the HTML style table?  (I'm less interested in name changes).

No, sorry, I expressed myself wrong.

I removed the "whole HTML4" table DTD fragment since it was way too
complicated for what I needed. For example, I've never used <colgroup>
or <col> or those things. So I used something that still is HTML, but
not 4.0 complete. 

<table>
 <caption>this is a table<caption>
  <tr>
   <th>names</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td>stefano</td>
  </tr> 
  <tr>
   <td>mike</td>
  </tr>
</table> 

not much more than this.

BTW, Mike if you look carefully into my DTDs, you'll find they are
_very_ similar to what you designed, but the DTDs came out much more
verbose because of the inheritance features that I included. In fact, my
Specification DTD extends Document DTD since it uses markup declarations
but adds things like bibliography, etc...

So, maybe, another look wouldn't hurt :)

> > > It can be done in an upward compatible way, so it
> > > doesn't cause any massive rewrites or updates, and it fixes some
> > > weaknesses in the grammar.  Let's give it a try, and get some custome
> > > feedback on it!
> >
> > Please, the word "customer" doesn't have a meaning in the open source
> > world. We deal with "developers" and "users". that's it :) this is our
> > slang.
> 
> Heh-heh...I'm going to be a bit subversive here, and try to get you to
> see these mere "users" of the "developer"'s technology in a bit
> different light... A bit of merging of the two worlds... There may be
> some value here in doing so, so I'll try to use the word "users", if you
> try to think of them as "customers"...  ;-) ;-)

Deal :)
 
> > Anyway, Pier and I will try to propose little painless changes to
> > converge...
> 
> That's cool with me!

Great.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation Conference!  
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------



Mime
View raw message