On Tuesday 07 February 2006 00:04, Luca Furini wrote: > Manuel Mall wrote: > >> This solves the first supposed problem (interaction between nbsp > >> and pretty-printing spaces), but the second one is still open: > >> what happens if we have > >> someContent<nbsp><space>otherContent ? > >> *IF* (and I'm not at all sure about this) there can be a break , > >> then both spaces should be discarded: > > > > IMO yes there can be a break and no only the space needs to be > > removed. Again the argument is that nbsp is not whitespace as per > > XSL-FO definition and need not to be removed. > > > > What makes you think that both the nbsp and the space needs to be > > removed around a fop generated linebreak? > > Oops, I forgot to add an importand condition: if the user explicitly > states that the nsbp must be discarded around a line break: > <fo:inline suppress-at-line-break="suppress"> </fo:inline> > Well, the more I look at this, the more it seems unlikely to ever > happen ... we are probably having a highly theoretical disquisition! > :-) > > Anyway, I was still not sure whether there could be a break so I > looked back at the Unicode Annex #14. > <snip/>
Luca, yes you are correct but 1. The suppress-at-line-break property can be applied to all characters. I would take the position at the moment that explicit specification of the suppress-at-line-break property is not supported and we worry about it at a later stage. I would certainly argue against just supporting it in the context of nbsp. 2. When we discussed UAX#14 line breaking on this list last year Joerg pointed out that he had a table driven implementation for it. At the the time I took a look, liked it, and updated it for compliance to the lastest UAX#14 spec and then shelved it for integration into FOP. That is when we move determining line break opportunities to the LineLM level (which we discussed extensively before) we get UAX#14 linebreaking as part of it by integrating Joerg's implementation. As a consequence I recommend against putting any UAX#14 specific stuff at the lower levels (e.g. TextLM) now in the context of fixing the nbsp problem. It will disappear anyway and IMO is therefore not worth the effort. Does that makes sense to you? > > So, it seems there could be a break between SPACE and NBSP (with NBSP > starting the next line), but not between NBSP and SPACE. Can we say > this is settled? > > Regards > Luca Cheers Manuel
