PDEP-3: Small data visualization consolidation
This is the official Pdep and design objectives I have been unofficially publishing PRs towards.

Some items like reimplementing `DataFrame.to_html` and `DataFrame.to_latex` to use `jinja2` suffer from ad-hoc and inconsistent PRs and PR reviews. It seems appropriate for a wider discussion and either adoption or rejection of these concepts.
can u comment on why the methods which do not support metadata (to_string,to_csv,to_json) should be included here?

sure there is some overlap but these miss a lot of the fundamental features of html,latex,excel

 For `to_csv` and `to_json` is the idea here that the styler would be useful to just str-format particular columns? Or is there a larger vision you have in mind? Many of the features in Styler are relatively new. With improved documentation, I believe there is a reasonable chance that these kinds of requests will eventually come.

`Styler.concat`, which is not even released (in 1.5.0), has the potential to get reasonable usage. It is a very easy way to combine data output, for the output methods that _exist exclusively_ for Styler.

Styler formatting features are now quite extensive. More customisation is available compared to regular DataFrame formatting on output (which `DataFrame.to_json` does not even have implemented), e.g. [latex escaping](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/72835144/problem-with-dataframe-to-latex-escape-argument/73215276#73215276) 

I raised `to_json` as one of the first things I observed, #36680, and there is support from, what appears to be, a web-designer clique (which was also my use case).

Console printing for Styler (to_string) is useful to developers not using Jupyter.

Finally, json is quite a flexible format. Currently there is no plan to extend meta data tagging `to_json`, but there is maybe a way to leverage Styler to include it. I did not envisage leveraging Styler to write `to_latex` but after it was requested we got it working and it now feels reasonably popular for those in academia.

If we have to take something off the list I'd rather it be `to_csv`. > ```python
> my_styler = GenericTableStyler()
> 
> my_styler.precision = 0
> my_styler.na_rep = 'MISSING'
> my_styler.thousands = ','
> my_styler.formatter['Decision Tree'] = '{:.2f}'
> # ...
> ```

Do you know this is available in a reasonably similar way with,

```python
from pandas.io.formats.style import Styler
pd.options.styler.format.precision = 0
pd.options.styler.format.thousands = ","
pd.options.styler.format.na_rep = 'MISSING'

my_styler = Styler(df)
```

If Styler was decoupled from pandas what would be the fall back for a method like DataFrame.to_latex and Dataframe.to_html, if a 'styler' wasn't provided? Would that mean the function has no way to generate HTML? Or would it still be dependent upon the LaTeX and HTML formatters, which the PDEP discusses removing becuase, they have their own issues which have not been addressed or maintained for a while? This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please [update](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/development/contributing.html#updating-your-pull-request) and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. @attack68 what's the status here? Seems like the discussion and development here has stalled. Closing for now, but happy to reopen if we want to circle back on this pdep 