On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 04:46 am, J.Pietschmann wrote: > Manuel Mall wrote: > > With respect to U+200B it says in > > [snip] > > > It therefore surprises me that you imply U+200B may expand in > > justification. > > The Unicode 3.0 book explicitely mentions that ZWS may be expanded > for justification, to my great surprise. The 2.0 book doesn't have > any remarks in this direction. I don't have access to a book more > recent than 3.0. Maybe they changed mind (again...). > Any one out there who has the 4.0 book and can shed some light on this?
> > Thanks for that list. With respect to the issue at hand, that is > > which codepoints should be given to the renderers it seems there > > are 3 types: > > ... > > > 2. Those we never give to the renderers, e.g. Soft Hyphen (its > > either suppressed or replaced by the proper hyphen), zero-width > > joiners, ... > > In case of the hypothetical HTML renderer, you *want* to pass all > these characters to the renderer. I would see a HTML renderer more like the RTF renderer which bypasses all the LayoutManager logic and it is really only a 'simple' conversion. That is XSL-FO formatting instructions are translated into HTML/CSS (or RTF) formatting instructions but no actual layout is performed (no page breaking, line breaking and the like). And yes for those types of renderers all text would need to be preserved. > > > Is that a sensible grouping? > > Dunno. > What about character composition/decomposition? Good question? Where is the answer? > > > J.Pietschmann Manuel
