Re: HTML output for tbl

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

>> However, I agree that this makes for ugly output, and having just
>> tested it with SCALE_EM, I think it's best to keep a few bits of
>> state and just reinitialise the table if broken up by other macros.
>> I'll write this up when I've a few minutes to myself.
>
> ACK. I do prefer to have SCALE_EX as default, the width can go way too
> large otherwise.

Joerg,

I just checked in a change to -Thtml for tables that has the following 
basic logic: when a new table is encountered, it sets column widths 
using <COL> and the "width" CSS style.

These columns are used until a macro is encountered.  At this point, the 
table is closed out and the macro is processed.

(This also works with block macros.)

Then when the first table-row is again encountered, the table is 
re-opened in the same way.

This allows for arbitrary breaks in the table flow; subsequent table 
rows, by being in the same TABLE, are all sized intelligently by the 
browser.

>> And no, we can't screw IE6.
>
> Well, the other option would be to require a bit JS for IE6. The point
> is that it is the only larger browser that might still be used that
> doesn't do min-width and also understands CSS. Worst case is that it
> doesn't use the size hints -- I consider that acceptable as fallout for
> getting much better output with useful browsers.
>
>> It just now occurs to me that, since CSS "cascades" atop the HTML, I
>> can set<COL>  pixel-widths as a safe default and let CSS, with its
>> precise "em" widths, override these values.  This will make browsers
>> without CSS also recognise mandoc -Thtml's tables, whether from
>> tbl(7) or otherwise, which for now require the style-sheet for
>> stipulating widths.
>
> I disagree somewhat. Using col is a good idea as it avoids redundant
> markup. Trying to second guess the font width is prone to fail. That's
> why specifying a minimal width is better -- it will still just stretch
> if needed.

Consider this.  If I hardcode <COL WIDTH="20" STYLE="min-width: 4ex;">, 
where "20" is (I'm just making these numbers up) a reasonable guess at 
the pixel-width of 4 x's, then "real" browsers can use the min-width and 
IE6, and any other non-CSS, will use the COL sizes for a reasonable spacing.

Thoughts?

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv