Martin,
I've worked with Bhavesh to sort out these issues. The inconsistency in
the syntax has been fixed.
The CSS could be more compact ... if we did not have to deal with nested
tables. It was also a goal to simplify the use for the doc comment
author, such that it was possible to put just one class definition on
the <table> tag, and not have to make additional declarations on the
tags within the table.
Our experiments showed that when we did not fully specify the structure,
it was possible for the details of one style to "leak" into another when
a table of one style was nested in another table of a different style.
At this point, the goal is to introduce the class names, and to have CSS
that works well enough across the major browsers. If someone wants to
suggest more concise CSS that works well in all our uses cases, that
would be a fine RFE for a future release.
-- Jon
On 5/10/17 7:10 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Looks good.
---
I suspect there's some way to specify the styles more compactly, but I
don't know enough css to say.
---
+table.borderless thead tr th, table.borderless tbody tr th,
table.borderless tr th,
+table.plain > thead > tr > th, table.plain > tbody > tr > th,
table.plain > tr > th,
I was surprised at the difference in syntax; why the ">" in one but
not the other?
