I agree that a) is probably best. See e-g/i-f-o just like a glyph in a
word, for example. At least, it could be used that way. In most
situations you'll probably surround the graphic with spaces anyway, so
break possibilities come from there.

On 09.11.2005 05:51:03 Manuel Mall wrote:
> What's the opinion around the group on how external-graphics / 
> instream-foreign-objects are suppose to be handled with respect to 
> determining linebreak opportunities.
> 
> a) There is no intrinsic linebreak opportunity on either side of an 
> e-g/i-f-o (of course if surrounded by spaces or other breaking chars 
> these will produce a linebreak opportunity)
>       Knuth sequence:
>               box w="..."
> b) They act more like a word surrounded by zero width spaces, ie one can 
> break before and after.
>       Knuth sequence:
>               pen w="0" p="0"
>               box w="..."
>               pen w="0" p="0"
> c) Like b) but its undesirable so we penalise it, like a hyphen.
>       Knuth sequence:
>               pen w="0" p="FLAGGED"
>               box w="..."
>               pen w="0" p="FLAGGED"
> d) Some (weird) combination like only allow a break after....
> 
> a) is certainly the simplest and an author can always put a ZWSP around 
> an e-g/i-f-o element. But would the "average" user expect it to behave 
> more like b) or c) (FWIW - MS Word behaves more like b)? On the other 
> hand for b) and c) we need an override if an author doesn't want a 
> break, ie. an explicit zero width joiner would be required. I am 
> tending towards a).
> 
> Manuel



Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to