On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Paul Grosso wrote:
> Interoperability-wise, I suspect one gets a bit more with the Exchange
> table model, but probably only trivially so, as there aren't that many
> non-HTML table editing tools out there anyway these days. There are
> some details (the "cruft") of the CALS table model that would be
> difficult (but not impossible) to implement in XSLT.
>
> Unless there is a dire need to footers (and I believe most uses of
> table footers are bogus--like trying to fake getting table footnotes),
> I think the Exchange Table Model is sufficient and avoids some of
> the cruft of the CALS table model.
>
> However, I wouldn't object if other folks felt a strong need for the
> CALS table model (as long as I don't have to write the XSLT code to
> support spanspecs).
Docbook XSL stylesheets implement something halfway between Exchange
model and full CALS table model (I wonder what is the reason for this).
I think we should stick to the exchange model - simpler is better.
-- Paul
