<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>In recent feedback on Part 1, Murata-san wrote, “I reported discrepancies between figures in the PDF version of the<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>consolidated Part 1 and those in the Word version. Most of them are not real, but are caused by a non-acrobat PDF reader and my XSLT<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>script that extracts figures and tables. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, two of them are real. The figures in 17.4.22 17.4.24 of the PDF version and those in the word version do look different. I guess<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>that this difference is caused by a bug of MS Word. We can address this issue by creating small images for the example tables, but<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am wondering if we can do so as part of this consolidation.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The tables currently use the doubleWave border style; however, when I render PDF directly from MS Word, the result doesn’t look much like the original, which is Murata-san’s point.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It seems to me that we really don’t care just what border style is used here; we just need something to demonstrate the insideH and insideV elements. So I tried some other border styles until I found one that is easy to distinguish and also renders correctly to PDF; it is thickThinSmallGap.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Attached is a demo Word document with the two subclauses in question redone with this new border style and with corresponding changes to the generated XML. Also attached is the PDF rendering. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Murata-san, are you happy with this solution?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Rex<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>