From: Beni C. <cb...@us...> - 2004-06-19 21:06:31
|
David Goodger wrote on 2004-06-15: > [David Goodger] > >> I'd change the above so that the default for "header-rows" > >> (i.e. when unspecified) is zero.IOW, the author must explicitly > >> state how many rows of the CSV data to use as the table header. > > [Felix Wiemann] > > If one header row is the default and the user doesn't want to have a > > header row, he is forced to read the documentation and isn't tempted > > to misuse inline markup. > > > > Furthermore I can imagine that many tables have a header row. > > We can make "header-rows" option default to 1, but it has to be the > same for both internaland external CSV data.My objection is to a > default of 1 except when supplementary header data is given.The > original definition is much too complex and confusing: > > ``headrows`` : integer > The number of rows to use in the table header. Optional: > defaults to 1 unless ``headers`` is also defined. > > ``headers`` : "column head" ["column head"...] > Sets column table headers. Optional: if defined, ``headrows`` > defaults to 0 unless explicitly overridden. > Why have an option and limit it to a single row of headers? If the data is inside the reST file, this is just redudant. If it comes from an extranl file (``:file: ...``), I propose to still allow a body in the directive, prepending it to file's content - again making ``:headers:`` redudant. In that case we could set `headrows` automatically to the number of lines in the directive's body -- I have no opinion either way. > > But nevertheless I'm not quite sure if the automatism of > > automatically promoting the first row is good. > > That's not a big deal for me.Just let's be consistent and keep it > simple. > > Let's put it to a vote: > > * default "header-rows" to 0 > * default "header-rows" to 1 > * default "header-rows" depends on "header" data > I abstain from the vote - but see proposal above. -- Beni Cherniavsky <cb...@us...> Note that I can only read emails on week-ends. |