Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unicode is entitled to its opinion, but we do not necessarily > follow Unicode's opinion.
It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact about line breaking in general even if you don't accept the semantics of U+00AD as a format character. Even if you reject the conventions of other languages, you don't necessarily insert a hyphen at the end of a broken line in either British or American English. (TeX defines `\slash' for instance.) The _opinion_ now embodied in Emacs that Latin-1 0xAD is a non-breaking hyphen -- contrary to its definition -- and that the Latin-2 version isn't, seems to be completely unsupported. Amongst the programs that apparently treat it as soft hyphen on this GNU system are lynx, mozilla, yudit, openoffice and latex. Obviously if it _is_ non-breaking, it shouldn't appear at the end of the line. > If the opinion is based on reasons, those reasons may be valid. It > would be useful for us to look at those reasons. If you tell us what > they are, we can look at them. Read the Unicode chapters concerning the relevant characters and line-breaking properties. I don't remember which they are. As I said, I'm _not_ advocating changing the behaviour of 0xAD to be non-displaying, for instance. I _am_ advocating that you don't define characters to be different to how everyone else defines them and end up internally inconsistent when people use describe-character with the Unicode database and find that what you define as no-break hyphen is actually soft hyphen and no-break hyphen is something else. To get back to the main point, are people saying that it's obvious to users why these things are treated as they are and how to turn that off? Otherwise, is the argument that they shouldn't care, so it shouldn't be customized for instance? _______________________________________________ Emacs-pretest-bug mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
