Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #31: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.54, <table>

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2018 10:39 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; 'XML Developer List' <xml2rfc-
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #31: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In
> Section 2.54, <table>
> 
> On 2018-10-06 19:10, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xml2rfc-dev <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Henrik
> >> Levkowetz
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:33 AM
> >> To: XML Developer List <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #31: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In
> >> Section 2.54, <table>
> >>
> >> Bringing this issue to the list.  The issue was raised by Miek:
> >> https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/31
> >>
> >> This issue starts out by stating one problem, namely that <table> has
> >> no provisions for having a caption.  The discussion subsequently
> >> sorts this out, pointing to the use of the <name> element for a table
> >> in order to provide the caption.
> >>
> >> In order to make this clearer, Section 2.54 probably should mention
> >> the usage of <name> to provide a caption, and section 2.32 should
> >> include 'table' in the initial list of places it can be used (not
> >> only texttable).  Section 1.3.3, bullet 7 could also mention the use of <name>
> to provide a caption.
> >>
> >> The discussion subsequently mentions the discrepancy between table
> >> and figure permitting <name>, while <artwork> doesn't.  To clarify
> >> this, it might be good to point out in Section 2.5. <artwork> that
> >> there is no separate numbering space for artwork; in order to caption
> >> and number a piece of artwork it has to be wrapped in a <figure> so that it
> can get a Figure number.
> >>
> >> Finally the discussion moves on to the alignment of table captions.
> >>
> >> There are 2 issues here:
> >>
> >>  - one schema issue, which is whether to permit left/center/right
> >>    alignment of tables.  It is permitted for artwork, and was permitted
> >>    for texttable, but it not permitted for <table>.
> >
> > This is going to violate the least surprise rule. Since v2 centers
> > tables by default, I think that should be the case in v3 as well.
> 
> I fully agree.  Not making it so is a mistake from my side.  Will fix in the next
> release.
> 
> > The
> > question then becomes what are the advantages/disadvantages of
> > allowing for left and right aligned tables.
> 
> Right.  (And also the issue of permitting it in the past, but not now.)
> 
> >>  - The alignment of the table caption.  This is not covered in the
> >>    specification, but xml2rfc 2.10.2 centers the caption, while the
> >>    table (lacking any alignment specification) is left-aligned.  For
> >>    narrow tables, this mis-alignment of caption and table does not look
> >>    good.  The next release of xml2rfc will center the caption under the
> >>    table, before placing the combined table and caption.
> >
> > What is the rule you have for doing the alignment of figure captions?
> > I think that the same rules should apply to both figures and tables.
> 
> Till now, both have been centered.  That can be changed.
> 

No, I would not change this.  I would keep the centering for the caption.  The next interesting question the caption is wider than the table should it be wrapped to the table width or run on past the edge of the table.  I don't think that I have a preference

Jim


> >
> >>
> >> To sum up:  I think there are some improvements that could be made to
> >> the document text, to clarify the use of <name> to provide <table>
> >> captions.  There is one unresolved schema issue (align keyword for
> >> <table>) and one layout issue which will be fixed in the next xml2rfc release.
> >
> > +1 on adding the align to the table, but the default needs to be
> > center. If we allow it for figures then it should also be allowed for
> > tables.
> 
> Makes sense to me.
> 
> 	Henrik