I, for one don't care what the iso standard says, they are wrong. A table does not represent a set of entities. Tables represent a single predicate function. So the Employee table with the following attributes:
EmpNo, FirstName, LastName, DeptNo, Address,...
MEANS literally "Employee (EmpNo) has a first name of (FirstName), a last name of (LastName), works in (DeptNo), and lives at (Address),...
A single relation must have one, and only one predicate as its meaning. Furthermore a relation is just the definition of the table and has no "rows" or "entities." The definition of the thing that combines a relation AND has data in it is actually a variable, hence the term Relation Variable or relvar for short. The set of tuples in a relvar are a single value regardless of whether a relvar contains 1 or a million "rows." Any modification to any tuple in the relvar is logically changing the entire value of that variable, just like any other variable.
Therefor "Tables" should, regardless of what ISO says, be named in the singular.
It is amazing to me how many people can't grasp the simple relationship between a relation and its value but have no problem declaring variables and dealing with their changing values seperately... This is what Chris Date termed the "First great blunder" of SQL, and it has ramifications far beyond this discussion.
If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this. -Friedrich August von Hayek