Tadziu Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-02-08 12:19 +0100: > I'm not familiar with DocBook, but doesn't it have something > analogous to HTML's "definition list"?
It does -- DocBook has both a general-purpose element for marking up associative lists -- which is called variablelist -- and a specific element for marking of glossary lists, which is called glosslist. > It occurs to me that some of the "tables" you're discussing > might be better served with such a definition list (as is > actually currently the case). Yeah, many probably would better be marked up with variablelist. > Not every two-column table is a definition list, but neither > is every definition list best presented as a two-column table > (e.g., the definition tags might have widely varying widths, > and arbitrarily squeezing them to some narrow column is not > necessarily the preferred presentation). The manpage macros > do not provide a dedicated list environment, but they provide > the basics (RS, RE, TP) with which such lists can be emulated. > Turning these lists into tables, though perhaps possible, is > not necessarily what the original author might have intended. > (Of course, the reverse might also be true, that a list is > used although a table is intended, just because this was > easier to code.) But as far as I know, doclifter never converts any RS/RE or TP markup to DocBook table markup, and I can't remember any messages being posted to this thread suggesting it should (but maybe I missed something). > Nevertheless, does anybody here remember the discussion about > AT&T-tbl's "expand column" feature on this list some months > back? I don't remember reading that one. Is it something that solves this problem of multi-column tbl tables coming out looking so bad? --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/