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

> 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.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to