LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  February 1997

LATEX-L February 1997

Subject:

Generic Mark-Up for Tables?

From:

Marcel Oliver <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:43:12 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

I would like to bring another topic up for discussion, namely the fact
that there are currently virtually no high level, generic mark-up
commands for the design of tables.

Being a Mathematician, I never worried too much about the typesetting
of tables, because tables rarely are rarely used in my field, and if
so, they are rather trivial.  In the last few weeks I was helping a
Linguist typesetting some paper, and although LaTeX performed
miraculously well in handling the mixed use of three different
alphabet (Latin, Greek, and Phonetic), the typesetting of two slightly
non-trivial tables proved to be a major pain and a main source of
delay for the whole project.

First I should say that there seem to be some unwritten conventions in
the field that seem not unrelated to the fact that most people use
commercial word processors and thus these conventions reflect maybe
more about the current capabilities of MS Word than anything else.  On
the other hand they are too important to be ignored if LaTeX wants to
claim some sort of universality.  To be more concrete, people seem to
want different line styles for the separator between entries in the
table (dashed, gray, dotted, double etc.) to indicate certain
relationships between the entries.

After some hacking, and the use of xfig for one of the tables, I more
or less managed to produce the required output with LaTeX, but the
solution was neither efficient nor in line with the LaTeX philosophy
of providing generic mark up constructs.

Thinking more about the matter, it seems that the whole table
mechanism in LaTeX (the tabular environment and the various
patches/replacements to it which exist in the tools distribution and
on CTAN) are essentially on the level of plain TeX and visual mark-up.
Even a very reasonable request like "I want my table to stretch to the
whole width of the page rather than stop 3mm before the right margin"
requires fiddling with @ expressions in the tabular*
environment---which is not elegant, to say the least.

So I would like to make a few suggestions.  I haven't done any deep
research on this matter, but maybe other people have already had
similar ideas or problems.

1. One should identify logical units of tables (like \section etc.) in
the body of a LaTeX document.  A (partial) list of these could be

- column/row headers (which would probably be typeset in a different
style or alignment option than the rest of the column/row.

- 1st level, 2nd level, 3rd level etc. column separators, the same for
row separators, separately specifiable for every entry in the table.

- Different "data" types of entry (decimal number, integer, paragraph,
unbreakable line etc.)

2. The possibility to define more of the above entry types.  I am
thinking in particular of the possibility to say that certain entries
are of type A, and the table mechanism would automatically balance all
entries of type A to have the same width.

3. The introduction of a \tableclass command in analogy to
\documentclass.  The documentclass would select a default table class,
but the user could issue a new \tableclass commands before each table
if necessary for the particular material.  The table class and its
options would define the visual appearance of the generic mark-up
features.  For example, it may map a 1st level column separator to a
double line, a 2nd level column separator to a single line etc.

4. I believe that many or all instances in which one currently needs
to issue a \multicolumn command could be better handled by allowing
a multilevel table structure, i.e. each entry could be a table by
itself, and the algorithm would sensibly deal with placing it
seamlessly into the higher level table.  Very similar to nested lists
in current LaTeX.

This will require something more sophisticated than merely placing the
inner table into a box and then building the outer table around the
box, because this would make alignment between rows or columns between
different inner tables impossible.  Rather, the algorithm should be
able to resolve the whole table in units of its finest subgrid, and
then build the table as one entity.

Maybe it would be still useful to have something like \multicolumn,
but with a more systematic syntax, e.g. as a "level -1" column
separator which breaks into the adjacent column, a "level -2" column
separator which "eats" two column separators, and so on.


Does this sound like a reasonable approach?  Does it seem possible to
program such things in TeX with finite effort? (I have to admit that I
don't know to much about the deep mysteries of plain TeX.)

  Marcel

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager