Proposed table specification (long!)

[David Chambers]

Fletcher T. Penney <fletcher at fletcherpenney.net> wrote:

   But I think the biggest issue is the monospace vs proportional

> font problem.  This plagues every proposed table syntax out there (to

> my knowledge) --- tables just aren't going to look right in both font types

> in plain text files.  Proper alignment is a key feature of tables, and it's

> frustrating when this is destroyed by changing the font.



The fact that columns in such tables are not aligned when a proportional
font is used is not pertinent, in my opinion. Even a *jagged* "Markdown"
table does a better job of representing data in a tabular fashion than
HTML's mess of <tr>s, <th>s, and <td>s.

David


On 11 May 2011 00:09, Simon Bull <waysoftheearth at yahoo.com.au> wrote:


> Hello Thomas,

>

> In reply to your comments...

>

> Yes, I have assumed mono-spaced (or equivalent) rendering throughout.

>

> Comparing examples 1.1 and example 2.3.b, yes you are correct.  I need to

> update the description given for 1.1 (the so called "compact form").  The

> compact form (without blank lines or rules between rows) will always result

> in a single table row with multiple lines per row.

>

> However, it would be possible to also specify a "single line per row"

> interpretation if that is a desired feature.

>

> Your comment re: "line breaks" versus "blank lines" is also taken on board.

>

> Thanks for your valuable comments,

>

> Simon

>

>

>

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Humiston <tom at jumpingrock.net>wrote:

>

>> Notes from a writer who makes occasional light use of Markdown and is not

>> involved in implementations at all (nor especially familiar with other -down

>> table syntaxes):

>>

>> I view my plain-text emails in a proportional font (Verdana). Simon's

>> tables look ragged that way, but readable and not terribly unpleasant.

>>

>> Such decoding of occasional monospace-intended bits is, in my view, a

>> fairly conventional matter in email, and thus congruent with Markdown's

>> inspiration. Perhaps the matter of mono vs. proportional is not such a

>> bugbear after all, at least for small-to-medium tables (and for the rest,

>> there's always HTML).

>>

>> But wait -- Given 2.1.b's handling of empty cells, it seems the proposal

>> still assumes some degree of monospace involvement. Similarly, 3.1.a speaks

>> of omitting a space-denoted column break from "between" two columns, a break

>> that is "between" in a sense (either visual or numeric) that's likely

>> obvious in monospace only.

>>

>> So in the proposal, colspans do depend on character counts, and thus on

>> monospace writing tools (except in tables simple enough for manual

>> counting). Well, I suppose most authors of Markdown texts use such tools

>> anyway.

>>

>> A confusing bit for me: Section 2.3.b leaves me thinking that the compact

>> form is usable only for single-row bodies, and NOT for, say, "three rows and

>> three columns" as indicated in Section 1.1. Also, I'd suggest instructing

>> authors to use "blank lines" as Gruber does instead of "line breaks" (as the

>> latter connotes carriage returns and/or newline characters).

>>

>> - TH

>>

>>

>>

>> Simon Bull wrote:

>>

>>  ~~~~~

>>>

>>>

>>>   -----------------------------------

>>>        THE PEOPLE OF MIDDLE-EARTH

>>>   -----------------------------------

>>>

>>>     People    Homeland    Tongue

>>>   ===================================

>>>     Elves     Rivendell,  Quenya,

>>>               Mirkwood,   Sindarin,

>>>               Lorien      Nandorin

>>>

>>>     Dwarves   Erebor      Khuzdul

>>>

>>>     Hobbits   The Shire,  Westron

>>>               Breeland

>>>

>>>

>>> ~~~~~

>>>

>>>  _______________________________________________

>> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

>> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

>> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Markdown-Discuss mailing list

> Markdown-Discuss at six.pairlist.net

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/markdown-discuss/attachments/20110511/790dd8ca/attachment.htm>