Indeed, we have tables in MDITA.... but mapping a CALS table to MDITA would not be fun... and I don't think it can even be accomplished in GFM.
--Â
Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Communication
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
(540)200-8201
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:34 PM Mark Giffin <> wrote:
It's my understanding that you can already use HTML tables in MDITA,
so no need for CALS tables there. And Patrick's comments were about
XDITA.
Mark
On 23-May-19 8:35 AM, Alan Houser
wrote:
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
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
