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

[cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann)]

>>> 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.

But that's not what a tfoot is about.
(I think you are thinking about the postamble.)

>> 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.

Not at all to me (but then I start counting at 0).

(I would expect a free mixture of thead and tbody rows, making tfoots
somewhat redundant.  tfoots are most useful for table that are split
between pages and need repeated headers and footers; I'm not sure that
is the intention here.)

Gr??e, Carsten