• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Matthias Fischer <m.fischer@a...>,Xml-Dev-List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:03:08 -0700

At 12:05 PM 16/08/01 +0200, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>I have to decide according to which table model my company wants our
>customers to produce XML data. Basically, we would prefer CALS tables, but
>FO prefers ­ at least, this is the way it appears to me at the moment ­ a
>PDF-oriented approach.

<opinion class="religious">
The HTML table model is inherently better.  The only things that
CALS can do that HTML can't are idiosyncratic and complex things
that usually are bad typesetting practice and almost never can
be presented effectively on-screen.

I've often thought that HTML per se was a pretty ordinary
document markup language.  The table model is the exception;
it's comprehensible, flexible, powerful, and just kind of
generally does what you need.
</opinion>

<question class="genuine-interest">Why on earth would you want to 
use the CALS table model?</question> -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Conversion between table models
    • From: Matthias Fischer <m.fischer@a...>
  • Re: Conversion between table models
    • From: Michael Smith <smith@x...>

• References:
  • Conversion between table models
    • From: Matthias Fischer <m.fischer@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Next by Date: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Previous by thread: Conversion between table models
• Next by thread: RE: Conversion between table models
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread