# Re: Hyphetation broken with last commits

```On Dec 18, 2005, at 06:16, Manuel Mall wrote:

Hi Manuel / Simon,```
```
```
```On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 03:30 am, Simon Pepping wrote:
```
```
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.

```
```<snip />
While I still don't quite agree with the statement
```
'nbsp should not have a linebreak around it' because nbsp surrounded by
```whitespace (and therefore surrounded by possible linebreaks) for
example is perfectly legal and sensible in some situations this really
is not important here.
```
```
Good point, although that is again a very exceptional situation...

<fo:inline>     &#xA0;    </fo:inline>

```
Very theoretical. Although one can imagine this occurring, I believe the probability is extremely low.
```
```
```Does it mean because the Knuth algorithm removes all glues after a
linebreak (and we also remove all glues at the end of a paragraph) a
nbsp should not be modelled not like this:

pen p=INF
glue w=...

but like this:

box w=0 aux=true
pen p=INF
glue w=...
box w=0 aux=true

```
with the leading box preventing removal at the beginning of a line, the
```trailing box prevents removal at the end of a paragraph, and the
penalty prevents a line break.
```
```
```
As far as my understanding of the Knuth algorithm goes, that might be a way to solve it. Even better would be to make the creation of the auxiliary zero-width boxes conditional --depending on whether there are already other boxes surrounding the nbsp (if at all possible). It's really only in the cases where there are no preceding/following boxes that we need special treatment, no? In case of surrounding non- whitespace, the first model would seem to be sufficient.
```

Andreas

```