You find that surprising? You should be used to that by now. :-) I think
the spec can be interpreted both ways. Have you checked what other
implementations do? If you find only one behaviour, we've missed
something. ;-)

Jeremias Maerki

On 21.11.2007 12:19:56 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi,
> Surprisingly enough I found something unclear in the specification 
> regarding breaks in tables:
> In the separate border model there is a border-separation property that 
> specifies the distance between adjacent cells. The questions are:
> - if there is a break in a table, between cells (regardless of whether 
>   the table’s border is conditional, see below), should the last cells 
>   on the page also have half of the border-separation after them? 
>   Technically speaking there are no adjacent cell after them...
>   I’d say yes, and that’s how the current code behaves, because the spec 
>   explicitly states that for cells the border has two components, but...
> - if the corresponding border is conditional 
>   (border-before/after-width.conditionality = discard), should the 
>   border-separation also be discarded? The question holds for fo:table 
>   as well as for fo:table-cell (when there is a break /inside/ it)
> I tend to think that the separation should be discarded if so is the 
> border, but I’d welcome confirmation on this topic. And that may lead to 
> funny things, for example if a two-column table has a conditional 
> border-after, so has the cell on the first column, but the cell on the 
> second column has a retained border. The bottom of the first cell will 
> align with the bottom of the region-body, but for the second cell there 
> will be /half/ of the border-separation between its border-after and the 
> bottom of the region-body. Follow me ;-) ?

Reply via email to