(Ulrich Fuchs <mail(a)ulrich-fuchs.de>)e>):
Yeah, that nested table is a nuisance. I'll
have to think about that.
Its not a nuisance, it's an advanced feature of HTML
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT HTML. Wikipedia is a collection of free encyclopedic
content, currently being delivered to users by the technology available
to us at the time, which happens to be HTML. Wikipedia's content should
be described in unambiguous ways that preserve the content and structure
of documents, and that can be rendered readably and edited easily. HTML
fails to meet at least some of those criteria (notably ease of editing).
A Table - and especially a table with complex
structure, nesting etc - *IS* a
complex thing. You will not be able to eliminate that complexity. As soon as
you are trying to do it, you will greatly reduce the flexibility. As soon as
you add that flexibility again, you add the complexity again. So why
re-invent the wheel by having (in the end) the same problems in just another
markup language?
Believe me, I won't let that happen. I have no interest in translating the
complexity into a different language just for the hell of it either. If I
can't make it simpler, I won't change it.
Yes, I think we might have to give up some "flexibility", if it's only
the flexibility to do things that don't really improve the user experience.
Tables in general are important: they organize information neatly and
ease comparisons of similar things. But I'm not at all convinced that
nested tables are of any use other than to show off coding skills.
I strongly support the table:namespace concept: It
offers all the the HTML
flexibility you need, and you keep the article source clean of the table
code.
The contents of the table IS IN THE ARTICLE, whether you hide it off in
another page or not. The tables are part of Wikipedia's content, and if
they aren't easily editable, they aren't useful.
That said, I'm still open to the idea of transclusion in general: that
is, having pages whose whole contents are included into a referencing
page. That would allow us not only to separate things like tables, but
also things like boilerplate text. A syntax like [[include:xxx]] could
be used. That would also get us nested tables (and it might also be a
performance nightmare!)
If we can have the table syntax proposed additionally,
thats just fine: A
newbie will start with a simple table, as soon as it gets more complex, an
experienced user can move it into a full-fetaured html-table in the new
namespace and link it from the article.
I don't like that idea much either.
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC