Nice work, Manuel! That will be a great addition to Fop. I have never studied the problem in detail, so I can only give a general opinion. But I think we should follow as closely as possible the Unicode standard, even if that leads to behaviors incompatible with the current one. It seems the Unicode standard is designed to nicely handle all sorts of high-level typographical issues. This would be great to be able to say "Fop is Unicode compliant". And users can refer to a well-known, well-defined standard if they want to understand Fop's behavior or achieve special effects.
So, by all means, go for it! Vincent Manuel Mall a écrit : > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 20:43, Manuel Mall wrote: >> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:55, Manuel Mall wrote: >> <snip/> >> >>> Its looking OK so far and most of the layout engine tests pass. >> Just discovered the first instance of an existing testcase which >> gives a different result. > > Here is another one: The current FOP implementation treats spaces other > than NBSP, e.g. U+2009 (Thin Space) and U+200A (Hair Space) as > suppressible around line breaks. I believe that is incorrect as the > spec explicitly limits whitespace handling to the normal space U+0020. > The test case which shows that is block_white-space_4.xml. It tests for > specific Knuth element sequences which are now different because these > spaces are now treated as not suppressible. > > After making the appropriate adjustment to the checks in that testcase > ALL testcases are now passing! > >> <snip/> >> > Manuel
