My experience echos Kris's. For my projects that do involve
complex tables (primarily parts catalogs), I would not even
consider using Lightweight DITA.
An MDITA mapping to CALS tables would be highly problematic. We
would need to severely constrain the CALS table model. Even
offering HTML tables would be similarly problematic.
I admit that I'm moved by Patrick's arguments and passion. But
we've long acknowledged on the LwDITA SC that the boundaries
between LwDITA and DITA will be challenging for many. This is one
example.
Regarding MDITA/HDITA/XDITA ... my observations echo Mark's. I do
see vendor/adopter activity around MDITA and XDITA, but not HDITA.
I suspect a root cause is that few organizations author directly
in HTML.
-Alan
On 5/22/19 3:47 PM, Kristen James
Eberlein wrote:
I have always used simple tables. In 17 years of using DITA (14
years of daily use), I never used row or column spanning until
this past January. And it was very much a presentational hack.
Kris
Sent from my iPad
On May 22, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Mark Giffin <>
wrote:
It's the Bane of Tables. Tables really are rather evil. They
always cause lots of trouble, no matter what you are
authoring in: Word, Markdown, HTML, DITA, a whiteboard.
Tables are ridiculously complex markup/programming. Tables
are a thing unto themselves.
But Patrick B's argument has merit. It's the best argument
I've heard for CALS tables in XDITA. I remember discussing
this heavily in lwdita meetings. I think it's possible that
people really want something simple, except when it comes to
tables. I personally have never had a client that used
simpletable. Has anyone else?
On the other side, who has expressed interest in XDITA? I'm
thinking that only vendors are messing with XDITA. All the
interest outside of vendors that I have personally seen for
lwdita is for MDITA. Also, I believe easyDITA is based on an
XML database. Can it handle markdown files?
Mark
On 22-May-19 12:22 PM, Alan
Houser wrote:
Of course, the people behind "standard #15" will deny
that it competes in any way with the other 14 standards.
I'll make this claim on behalf of Lightweight DITA. :-)
What I really want to know ... is table markup semantic
or presentation-oriented? I miss the days when you could
raise this question at an SGML/XML conference, and watch
fistfights break out.
-Alan
On 5/22/19 3:00 PM, Magliery
Tom wrote:
Modulo the specific tools being held up
as examples, I seem to recall an entire conference (or
possibly conference track?) dedicated to this
debate/discussion in 1996. And I'm not nearly as old
as some markuppers.
There is no solution*, there is only compromise.
*Well, there is one solution:Âhttps://xkcd.com/927/Â.
mag
On Wed, May 22, 2019
at 8:33 AM Carlos Evia <>
wrote:
Dear Lightweight DITA subcommittee
members,
I cancelled our call scheduled for May 27th
because it is a holiday here in the US (and
there's no childcare!).
I don't want to wait, however, for our next call
to address a concern/question from Patrick Bosek
at easyDITA. Patrick has been in touch with me as
he works on an implementation of LwDITA, and he
had some concerns about the lack of CALS tables in
XDITA.
With his permission, I am pasting his comments
here and I hope that we can discuss via email
before our next call.
Best,
Carlos
-----
From Patrick Bosek:
Ok, that seems like a pretty significant issue to
me. Without row/col spanning I think LwDITA is
going to really struggle to find an audience.
Here's the thing, you've basically got two
audiences for LwDITA: normal people who don't know
DITA and tech writers that think DITA is too
complex.
Normal people who don't know DITA:
... are going to be coming from one of 3 formats,
Word, Google Docs, or some HTML editor. All of
these options support row/col spanning and are
going to be expected by these authors. Further,
when they start using LwDITA and find out they
can't create the table they need to create,
they're completely stuck, there's no workaround.
This is actually one of the primary reasons we
configured simpletable off in easyDITA*, when
people would add simpletables we would invariably
get a support ticket claiming easyDITA was broken
because they couldn't format their table. Then
when we explained it was because simpletable
didn't support this, we'd get a range of
reactions, but none of them were happy or
understanding.
Tech writers that think DITA is too complex:
... will be coming from something like Madcap,
Markdown, FrameMaker, or a wiki or some sort
(probably Confluence). All of these options will
also contain this capability, and I think almost
any technical publication past the most basic will
require a non-standard table.
* the other reason we configured simpletable off
is because not a single customer uses it.
I think a potential solution is to simply use HTML
tables. I know there are some issues with
backwards compatibility, but I think simpletables
are going to be insufficient for real use case.
And the result of this is that people who come to
try LwDITA will run into this impassible
roadblock, and become extremely frustrated, where
at best, they'll move into regular DITA and
advocate that other people avoid LwDITA.
Thoughts?
--Â
Carlos Evia,
Ph.D.
Associate
Professor of
Communication
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA
24061-0112
(540)200-8201
