Le 25/07/2018 à 09:08, Daniel a écrit :
Thanks. I think it looks good. I prefer it.
So we disagree ;)
Attached is a comparison with a PDF output (one with, roughly, the same
table size and one with, roughly, the same font size).
Note that when the table is larger in pdf, the rulles are thicker too
(they are in em). This makes sense, but the thickness here is to be
compared to the 'blackness' of the font (I am not sure of my
typographical technical terms). I still think that the top/bottom lines
are too thick.
I take it that the thicker first and second lines are just eye cady
while the thicker line(s) in between fulfill the more important function
of making it easier to distinguish between, for example, the head and
the foot of the table and the body.
The thick top/bottom lines convey that the table is a formal table. It
is not eye candy, it is a WYSYWYM indicator.
The fact that incomplete les are thinner *is* eye candy. Only people
doing complicated tables care about it, and these people are supposed to
know what they are doing. I want to do something that encourages people
to use formal tables (there were talks about setting it as default), but
do not attract too much the eye. Having a thinner line for incomplete
lines would be eye candy IMO. But I am not a specialist in formal tables.
Anyway, here are a couple of alternatives with some reason for it:
(1) Make all thicker lines the same width (2px).
Reason: The thicker first and second line are not confused with other
lines because of their special location.
What do you call first and second? I (3), it looks like top/bottom, but
here ??
(2) Have only the lines in between thick (2px).
Reason: The thicker first and second lines are only eye candy anyway.
???
(3) Have only the first and second line thick (2px), as in your first
version.
Reason: The thicker first and second lines are there only to indicate
that the table is formal/a booktab.
That was precisely my point.
JMarc
