Yes, that's a glossary so you can mark it up as such. However don't
create a glossary-search-key-map.xml file because it's not actual
reference material for text in the book itself. I think lint should not
complain in this case.
Table looks good, but remove the periods from the headers (except for
am/pm of course).
Instead of the dots, use one em dash that is centered. Dot leaders are
not possible in a sane way with current HTML/CSS limitations. I would
also replace "ditto" with ldquo for readability.
Since this table looks like it groups by month (nov/dec), look in to
adding col/row semantics for accessibility. This is in the HTML spec,
not part of SE per se (as far as we proscribe requirements). See
It can get a little confusing but it's important to do this for
On 1/28/22 10:13 AM, Lukas Bystricky wrote:
> I'm working on some tables now, and there's two tables as such:
> Screen Shot 2022-01-28 at 4.57.45 PM.png
> that look more like glossaries to me. Is it worth it (or possible) to
> treat it as a glossary structure (but keeping it as part of the body not
> of backmatter), or should I leave it as a table?
> There's also the following table,
> Screen Shot 2022-01-28 at 4.58.56 PM.png
> which I've managed to reproduce to look like:
> Screen Shot 2022-01-28 at 4.56.22 PM.png
> Is that close enough? This is my first SE table, so I'm wondering if
> there's some standard notation to mark empty cells for example that
> maybe I'm missing. Perhaps some thoughts on modernizing the
> punctuation/capitalization in the table would be useful too.