[Sesquipedalian Sam]

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:17:24 -0500, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

What Sam is saying, though, if I read it correctly, is just the opposite:
that the column widths behaved as expected but the row heights did not.

Correct. Actually, the vertical margins are not even consistent. The
top margin behaves like the left and right, but the bottom margin
overrides the row height.

1. Create a table. Start with these basic settings:
* Table width = 6", default cell margins = 0.0.
* Row height = 1", exactly.
* Column width = 2".
* Cell width = 2", margins = same.

You will get a table with cells that are 1" x 2" and zero margins.

2. Changing the default top cell margin to 0.5" produces a table that
is the same size, but with an internal margin, so the text area is
reduced.

3. Changing the default bottom cell margin to 0.5" produces a table
that is the 0.5" deeper, with an internal margin, so the text area is
not reduced.

I'd love to hear some Microsoft developer explain the logic behind
that anomoly. My guess is it is some legacy decision, like Excel
continuing the date anomoly (error) from Lotus 1-2-3.