Feature request: HTML table formatting

Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Daniel J. Sinder]

Generally, I like the latest incarnation of HTML table formatting,
in particular because I can control the presence of horizontal
lines.  But, now I'm spoiled and would like to do the same for
vertical lines -- on a table-by-table basis.  With the rules=groups
attribute (already the default with org-mode), this can be
accomplished in HTML using the COLGROUP element.

What about a new column delimiter (e.g., '!') to indicate column
groups in addition to columns?  My hope is to have something like
the following be possible:

!        !  Col A  |  Col B  |  Col C !
!--------!---------|---------|--------!
!  Row 1 !    A1   |   B1    |   C1   !
!  Row 2 !    A2   |   B2    |   C2   !
!--------!---------|---------|--------!

The '!' lines would appear in the HTML rendering, while the "|"
lines would not.  Or, as an ASCII export:
|-------+---------+---------+--------|
|       | Col A   | Col B   | Col C  |
|-------+---------+---------+--------|
| Row 1 | A1        B1        C1     |
| Row 2 | A2        B2        C2     |
|-------+----------------------------|


Dan

Re: Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Carsten Dominik]

I don't like the idea of another character having
special meaning in tables.  We would have to find
a different way to specify this.

- Carsten

On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:17, Daniel J. Sinder wrote:
>
> The '!' lines would appear in the HTML rendering, while the "|"
> lines would not.  Or, as an ASCII export:
> |-------+---------+---------+--------|
> |       | Col A   | Col B   | Col C  |
> |-------+---------+---------+--------|
> | Row 1 | A1        B1        C1     |
> | Row 2 | A2        B2        C2     |
> |-------+----------------------------|

Personally I think that also in this case, but generally in most cases,

          Col A    Col B    Col C
--------------------------------
  Row 1   A1       B1       C1
  Row 2   A2       B2       C2

looks much better.

- Carsten

Re: Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Matej Cepl]

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
> I don't like the idea of another character having
> special meaning in tables.  We would have to find
> a different way to specify this.

To the presentation of tables I would strongly suggest reading
http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/booktabs/booktabs.pdf
-- whenever I broke rules set there, I regreted it later.

Best,

Matej

Re: Re: Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 12, 2007, at 14:21, Matej Cepl wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>> I don't like the idea of another character having
>> special meaning in tables.  We would have to find
>> a different way to specify this.
>
> To the presentation of tables I would strongly suggest reading
> http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/booktabs/ 
> booktabs.pdf
> -- whenever I broke rules set there, I regreted it later.

This is also consistent with what the Chicago Manual of Style
has to say about tables:

    13.53 Vertical rules
    Vertical rules should be used only to avoid confusion — for
    example, when a table is doubled up.  Their use between all
    columns has long been abandoned.

I do understand the need to group columns visually, so I would be
interested in a syntax to do this.  But for the implementation in
an export backend, would prefer spanner heads.  Again from the
Chicago Manual:

    13.22 Spanner heads
    When a table demands column heads of two or more
    levels — when related columns require both a collective
    head and individual heads—spanner heads, or spanners
    (sometimes called decked heads), are used. A horizontal
    rule, called a spanner rule, appears between the spanner
    and the column heads to show which columns the spanner
    applies to. For ease of reading, spanner heads should
    seldom exceed two levels.

- Carsten

Re: Re: Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Daniel J. Sinder]

Matej Cepl wrote:
> To the presentation of tables I would strongly suggest reading
> http://tug.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/booktabs/booktabs.pdf
> -- whenever I broke rules set there, I regreted it later.

For publication quality tables, as per the above reference, I would
generally agree that vertical lines have no place.  However, if
you're using org-mode to produce publication quality tables, I'd
argue that you're probably using the wrong tool.  LaTeX (and all the
emacs support for it) is probably the way to go from the start.

In some respects, org-mode tables are more powerful than LaTeX
tables as they can be used as spreadsheets.  I use org mode on a
near-daily basis to collect information about my work and share it
with my colleagues for analysis.  The information is sometimes raw
data that will never (and should never) be consumed for casual
reading.  In some of these cases, I find that vertical separators
can increase readability and/or delineate different test conditions
or data sets.

I think rejecting vertical rules as a matter of style is a mistake.
 Whether you consider org-mode tables to be a markup or a
spreadsheet, it's peers -- HTML, LaTeX, Gnumeric, Excel, etc. --
will all produce tables with vertical rules if asked to do so.  I'm
wary of tools that enforce style.  I'd prefer to read the style
guide and then decide for myself (that is, use it as a *guide* not
an edict).

However, if vertical rules are too clunky, difficult,
time-consuming, or low priority to implement, that's an entirely
different matter that I can fully understand.  If I come up with an
implementation, I'll gladly contribute it back for those that want it.

Dan

Re: Re: Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 12, 2007, at 20:48, Daniel J. Sinder wrote:

>
> I think rejecting vertical rules as a matter of style is a mistake.
>  Whether you consider org-mode tables to be a markup or a
> spreadsheet, it's peers -- HTML, LaTeX, Gnumeric, Excel, etc. --
> will all produce tables with vertical rules if asked to do so.  I'm
> wary of tools that enforce style.  I'd prefer to read the style
> guide and then decide for myself (that is, use it as a *guide* not
> an edict).

Fair enough.

> However, if vertical rules are too clunky, difficult,
> time-consuming, or low priority to implement, that's an entirely
> different matter that I can fully understand.

As I said, I don't want to have a special separator for this,
implementation would be very cumbersome and I'd like
to be able to have ! as a character in a table field.
Maybe something like a special #+FORMAT line above the table
to set special formatting directives.

- Carsten

Re: Feature request: HTML table formatting

[Scott Otterson]

I'll agree with Daniel that sometimes, it's useful to have vertical 
table separators.  Here's how I kind-of do it:

| asdlfj |   | alsjfdas |
|--------+---+----------|
| alsdjf |   | aqsljf   |
| asdljf |   | asldjf   |

This is visible enough inside of org-mode and it yields a widish gap in 
exported html -- it's a horizontal screen space waster, though.  I 
suppose one way to denote a vertical separator without adding an extra 
symbol would be to allow tables in org-mode that look like this:

| asdlfj || alsjfdas |
|--------++----------|
| alsdjf || aqsljf   |
| asdljf || asldjf   |

The exporter could then detect '||' and convert it to a vertical html line.

Scott
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:23:16 +0200
> From: Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl>
>
> On Apr 12, 2007, at 20:48, Daniel J. Sinder wrote:
>   
>> >
>> > I think rejecting vertical rules as a matter of style is a mistake.
>> >  Whether you consider org-mode tables to be a markup or a
>> > spreadsheet, it's peers -- HTML, LaTeX, Gnumeric, Excel, etc. --
>> > will all produce tables with vertical rules if asked to do so.  I'm
>> > wary of tools that enforce style.  I'd prefer to read the style
>> > guide and then decide for myself (that is, use it as a *guide* not
>> > an edict).
>>     
>
> Fair enough.
>   
>> > However, if vertical rules are too clunky, difficult,
>> > time-consuming, or low priority to implement, that's an entirely
>> > different matter that I can fully understand.
>>     
>
> As I said, I don't want to have a special separator for this,
> implementation would be very cumbersome and I'd like
> to be able to have ! as a character in a table field.
> Maybe something like a special #+FORMAT line above the table
> to set special formatting directives.
>
> - Carsten