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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----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.  The question then becomes what are the advantages/disadvantages of allowing for left and right aligned tables. 

>  - 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.

> 
> 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.


> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 	Henrik
> 
> 
> 
>