On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 01:27 pm, Peter S. Housel wrote: > On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:55 +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > > 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? > > It says that U+200B normally has no effect on letter spacing in most > scripts, but only indicates a word boundary (and therefore a possible > line break). It also mentions that when letter-spacing Thai it may > grow to have a non-zero width, but that is the exception. (Thai > apparently doesn't put spaces between words, and uses U+200B as a > word separator.)
Thanks a lot Peter. Seems like the Unicode consortium did change their mind on U+200B between version 3.0 and 4.0. For the purpose of the current version of FOP which does not (yet) recognise scripts nor allows customisation of such behaviours we will then stick with ZWS not affecting justification I assume? Manuel
