[rfc-i] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "2.54 <table>"

[julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)]

On 2016-06-22 01:42, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2016, at 1:22, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-xml2rfc-03.html#rfc.section.2.54>:
>>
>>
>>> 1. One optional <name> element (Section 2.32)
>>> 2. Optional <iref> elements (Section 2.27)
>>> 3. One optional <thead> element (Section 2.59)
>>> 4. One or more <tbody> elements (Section 2.55)
>>> 5. One optional <tfoot> element (Section 2.57)
>>
>> a) I'm not totally convinced anybody will use <tfoot>.
>
> Neither am I, but some people seem to like to have bits of explanation
> in tables, and some like to put that after the table.

<tfoot> would repeat at the end on any page break; would you put an 
explanation there?

>> b) When running conversion tests, I discovered test cases that verify
>> that texttables that only contain column titles work; converting them
>> to v3 format yields a <table> element with <thead> but no <tbody>
>> child element. This would be valid HTML5; why do we disallow it?
>
> A table with no body seems semantically weird to me.

Yes, but it's something that could happen in v2 and what formatters 
support. At least we should mention that sources like these can not be 
converted to v3.

Best regards, Julian