Peter B. West wrote: > My take on this would be that the fo:block, by definition, breaks the > line. The question of whether this is an allowable place for a line > break is pre-empted by the user's assertion that it is. In these > circumstances, point 3 does not come into play.
I don't think so. The spec clearly states that the validity of a break is determined by language and script. There is no exception mentioned. This makes sense if you look at fo:inline: you may want to underline a single character in the middle of a word, and the presence of the fo:inline there should certainly not taken as an opportunity for a line break (assuming no hyphenation). I think the situation is similar for all other FO which are valid at this point. > These cover such categories as > Case, Numeric Value, Dashes, Line Breaking and Spaces. Hmm, I just checked the 2.0 CD. There is a Line Separator normative category, and there is exactly one character U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR of this category in the UNIDATA2.TXT file. There is a bunch of other control characters, the usual ASCII and ISO-8859 high controls, some joiners, BIDI and glyph selection related controls and perhaps two or three more. I didn't, unfortunately, find anything which says a line break may occur at a U+0020 space but not on a U+00A0 non breaking space. Is this new in 3.x? > Hyphenation will > also, I imagine, have to take account of the UCD. Hyphenation is even more language dependent than case changes and collation. I don't think the Unicode consortium will deal with this. The will, of course, provide all kind of hyphenation character, as expected. > The "special languages"... > So my bottom line there would be that, at least for > the immediate future, we should concentrate on implementing the UCD as > fully as possible where it impacts on layout, and let users with special > requirements work out how to express them in Unicode. Well, it was meant as an extreme example. I could have used a quotation in ancient greek if i had one at hand. You are, of course, right in that basics have to come before the extra stuff. > I have a copy of Version 2.0 of The Unicode Standard, and only regret > not having Version 3. I can heartily recommend the book, if only for the > pleasure of the fonts. Seconded. However, they have MS WORD documents on the CD, even - Horror! - in the Unix directory! Slightly related question: FOP appears to render the U+00A0 non breaking space always at full space width. Shouldn't the space also be used for justification purposes? There are, after all, non breaking spaces with a definite width available. J.Pietschmann --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
