Should it be reported as a bug?
It depends on whether it can be considered a bug or just a queer "our-way" gotcha
Fact is nobody said FPDoc XML is HTML; quite the contrary: it most emphatically is not. But the common "HTML-like" tags work like in HTML ... except <th>. So ... is it a bug or is there some reason?
We should see what real HTML is generated from such fpdoc tags: then we would know whether somebody just didn't pay attention to detail or there is a profound reason we don't know about.
I never claimed it was HTML. They needed formatting tags for their XML, and smartly decided to re-use the common HTML conventions. They didn't get all crazy like DocBook or DITA. I appreciate that.
But this one exception has to be translated back to the common HTML convention for both HTML and CHM output. And it's being converted in the HTML writer fpdoc/dw_html.pp. Even dwriter.pp (the base writer class) handles it as a row-level element.
My question remains "was it by design"? It's little inconsistencies like this that drive me nuts.
It's not like its a huge issue.15 total files in both FPC Docs and Lazarus use the TH tag. It wouldn't be very difficult to fix it in the XML source if it wasn't by design.
I was just curious.