On 29.06.2007 16:29:49 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Jeremias Maerki a écrit : > > Hmm, I don't find anything in XSL 1.1 or CSS 2 that would be clear > > enough for either solution. So I can't say it's either left or right, > > but my personal preference would be the left solution. Shrug. > > Well, section 7.28.5 in XSL-FO 1.1 (description of the > "border-separation" property) is actually pretty clear about this: > > "The "border-separation" property specifies the distance between the > borders of adjacent cells. This space is filled with the background > of the table element."
Yes, that's an important indicator. The absence of table-row references in this context could (but doesn't have to!) mean that the backgrounds for the table-rows do not extend beyond the cells. Still room for interpretation if you ask me, but I like your latest table-row_backgrounds3.png. > The text is basically taken from section 17.6.1, "border-spacing" of > CSS2. > > We can imagine that border-separation shouldn't really apply /within/ > table-cells, even spanning ones, and thus that the corresponding rows or > columns should be adjacent. That would give the attached result. Perhaps > more what the user would expect, but doesn't really make sense IMO. > > Anyway, another candidate request for clarification to xsl-editors@ > I guess... <snip/> Jeremias Maerki
