On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 05:46:42PM +0100, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Dec 17, 2005, at 16:29, Manuel Mall wrote: > > > Hi, > > >On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:07 pm, Simon Pepping wrote: > >>On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 11:43:36AM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > ><snip/> > >>The case is contradictory in itself, and quite unique. A nbsp will > >>never occur at the end of a line by its very definition, except in > >>this case! > >> > >Simon, > > > >I don't quite get it what you are trying to say. > > > ><fo:block> </fo:block> > > > >is perfectly legal and sensible in both XSL-FO (and HTML) and doesn't > >that mean a nbsp does occur at the end (and beginning) of a line. > > I guess what Simon is referring to is that if the line-breaking > algorithm does its job adequately, there will be no line-break > preceding/following a non-breaking-space, except when it is the first/ > last character in a block. Other break-possibilities should, in > theory at least, always be considered more favorable than breaking > before/after the nbsp... Correct, Simon?
That is precisely what I tried to say. > >What is contradictory or unique about this? > > That indeed is a bit overstating the case. It's not contradictory, > but it is a rather special situation. Not taking into account the > number of times such a construct is used in practice... It is more of > an HTML/XSL-FO trick to make a block appear non-empty --used mainly > in the context of table-cells, to have their borders drawn despite > the fact that there is no visible content. It is not a formal contradiction, but it feels like one: nbsp should not have a linebreak around it, but here we have to solve the problem how to deal with it when it does have a linebreak preceding or following it. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
