Re: Syntax Proposal: Multi-line Table Cells/Text Wrapping

[Tim Cross]

Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In principal, it wold be great to be able to support multi-row columns.
>> However, I'm not sure how easily this can actually be implemented in a
>> consistent and maintainable manner.
>
> Mmmm, this of feels like something where you'll quickly learn how hard
> it is/isn't when you try to implement it.
>
>> From watching these discussions in the past, I think the big stumbling
>> block is how easily multi-row columns can be added and maintained in the
>> various export formats. Some are easy, like HTML, but others are less
>> so. In particular, I know from my many years working with Latex,
>> multi-row columns are not straight-forward. There are lots of edge cases
>> to deal with and it is hard to get a consistent result programatically.
>>
>> Proposals like this one can seem simple and straight-forward on the
>> surface. However, implementation is another matter. All of the exporters
>> will need to be updated to handle this new syntax and it will probably
>> take a fair bit of work to handle it correctly in just plain org files
>> (formatting, highlighting etc).
>
> Currently if you were to try this content with the proposed syntax,
> content is just put in the top left cell of the group. This seems like a
> reasonable fallback to me. Then for HTML we have colspan/rowspan, and
> for LaTeX there's \multicolumn and with the multirow package \multirow.
>
> FWIW just formatting would need to be updated for Org files.
> Highlighting is fine as is.
>
>> If this was something people were prepared to put the time into
>> implementing, I think it must be done in a completely separate feature
>> branch and would need to be fully tested (including all back end
>> exporters) before it can be merged into the mainline branch. It would
>> also be important to profile and ensure it does not have significant
>> impact on performance.
>>
>> I am a little concerned about the expansion and addition of features in
>> org mode when there seems to already be a challenge with respect to
>> maintenance and bug fixing. Personally, I would prefer an org mode which
>> is consistent and reliable over one with large numbers of features that
>> is less stable and slower.
>
> I appreciate this concern, but I do think that the ability to have
> multi-col/row cells is invaluable in many large tables, and so would be
> a very good addition to Org.

We can debate how easy or hard this is to implement indefinitely. What
is needed is for someone to implement a working version which is
consistent, reliable and provides expected results across all export
environments.

The devil is in the details and I suspect that once you start trying to
implement the feature is when many of those challenges become clear.

My view is 'go for it'. Just create a new feature branch and implment
the functionality in that branch. We can then try using it and see where
it works and where it doesn't. Once this is done, a call can be made as
to whether it should be implemented in the main code base
-- 
Tim Cross