[[!tag wishlist patch]]
> This seems like weird overloading of the header parameter - it's
-> table data, except when it isn't. Perhaps
+> table data, except when it isn't.
+
+> > My first cut (now rebased out of existence I think) introduced a
+> > new "headerblock" parameter, but trying to clearly document the
+> > interaction of data/headerblock/header parameters was too awkward. -- [[Jon]]
+
+> Perhaps
> something like this would be easier to use in practice?
> (and also more featureful :-) )
>
> ikiwiki | no | yes | yes
> Starcraft | yes | yes | via Wine
> """]]
->
+
+> > Thanks for your prompt feedback!
+> >
+> > This would probably be good, yes, and having mixed row/column headers is
+> > definitely a nice-to-have. I don't relish the prospect of writing the parser
+> > but I see you've made a stab already...
+> >
+> > One thing you'd lose, but it's debatable whether this is valuable, would be
+> > to have the header defined in the directive, and the remaining table data
+> > declared in an external CSV. -- [[Jon]]
+
> intended to be rendered like
>
> <table>
> `header="1 row, first 2 cols, last column"`.
>
> --[[smcv]]
+
+> > To be clear I think your suggestion is a good one, but my hack has
+> > addressed my immediate need so it's the one I'm deploying at $ork for the
+> > time being. I'm unlikely to have time to implement this solution in the
+> > near future. -- [[Jon]]
+
+----
+
+I'd quite like to revisit this if that's ok. I'm still carrying a fork of
+table.pm locally to add this feature as I find it so useful. The main objection
+you made back in 2014 seems to be overloading the header= parameter, and I agree
+that this is not ideal. So I'm happy to resubmit this with an alternative parameter
+name for the new purpose. But I balked at the idea of implementing something like
+an NLP processor to define the header range. And I must stress how useful it is in
+practise to separate out the header definition from the data: quite often I don't
+want headers in my CSV files at all, for example, so I can perform rudimentary analysis
+on them with command line tools without having to factor in a header line (how many
+records? = `wc -l`; sorting on fields simply with `sort -k` etc.). Having them
+separate means I can have machine-generated or manipulated CSV files of data and then
+use ikiwiki to mark them up for human reading, but change or regenerate the data quickly
+and easily underneath.
+
+I'd appreciate your take on the above suggestions [[smcv]] before I roll my sleeves up.
+Thanks! — [[Jon]] (2018-09-24)