Review the use of formatting attributes with <table> and its subelements

[kerstarno]

In extension of #5, the conversation has posed the more general question of using formatting elements and attributes in EAC-CPF and EAD3.

In EAD3, this includes a major area with the element <table>, its subelements and the attributes:

• align
• char
• charoff
• colname
• colnum
• cols
• colsep
• colwidth
• frame
• morerows
• nameend
• namest
• pgwide
• rowsep
• valign

[kerstarno]

With the objective of the Shared Schema team in mind, cases like this, i.e. when certain elements only exist in one schema though might make sense on the other as well, will be referred to the according subteams for further information.

In this case, we'll as EAD team for information about the dominant usage of <table>, i.e. whether this is about data or formatting.

[kerstarno]

Summary of today's conversation:

• Feedback from EAD3 subteam seems to point in a direction of <table> rather being used for formatting reasons
• <table> in general not being used that extensively; there might be a question of overhead in terms of the encoding that's currently possible
• Kathy to look at data examples from EAD usage survey to feed into/support further consideration - e.g. would we recommend adding <table> to the informal descriptive elements of EAC-CPF as an option? or would we not see a requirement for that seeing the minimal use in EAD?
• Is there - more generally speaking - a point to make and a decision to take, if we would consider having a base/structured schema and an extended schema, with the latter including more sophisticated options such as <table>?