Hello Mari, I can see two ways: 1. Enclose each table into \bgroup ... \egroup scope, so all \setupTABLE will be treated local (table_test.mkiv). 2. Perform all setups right after \bTABLE (table_test2.mkiv). This is not applicable in all cases (e.g. \bTABLE[width=\textwidth] must be done here, not later) but in you case - you just setup specific columns and row, which can be done after \bTABLE safely. I deduce that each \bTABLE .... \eTABLE creates a group, so all initializations done within remain local. See my attempts. Best regards, Lukas On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:25:03 +0200, Mari Voipio wrote: > Hello! > > I have a bit of a table mystery. It seems that the setups of an > earlier table interfere with the table coming after it (in the real > thing there's text between the tables, but the behaviour is the same). > Each table looks fine by itself, but if I compile a file with both, > the second one looks weird. What is it that I don't see or understand? > > And yes, the tables really need to look like that. I'm recreating from > a pdf a document that is probably made with Word and this is how > they've done their tables in the original. > > I admit that my ConTeXt version isn't exactly the newest available, it > is dated 2015.02.03. If the combination of tables works in newer > versions, I'll update, otherwise I'm not keen to fiddle with a working > combo. > > > As always, I'll be grateful for any help I can get, > > > Mari > -- Ing. Lukáš Procházka | mailto:LPr@pontex.cz Pontex s. r. o. | mailto:pontex@pontex.cz | http://www.pontex.cz Bezová 1658 147 14 Praha 4 Tel: +420 241 096 751 Fax: +420 244 461 038