On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:38 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2005, at 14:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Case not covered by the altered code (but I didn't think it to be a
> showstopper):
> If you have:
>    <fo:block>
>      <fo:inline>some inline text _
> ____</fo:inline>_
> __</fo:block>
> Currently, the first series of underlined white-space is not
> completely suppressed. It will at most be collapsed to a single
> space. The second series --between endInline() and endBlock()-- is
> completely suppressed because handleWhiteSpace() was called from
> Block.endOfNode().
Hmm, isn't that a step backwards from the status before you applied the 

> I explicitly excluded fo:leaders from white-space handling, because
> for example:
> <fo:leader leader-pattern="use-content">   xxx   </fo:leader>
> Collapsing the three spaces to one may produce unintended results.
> OTOH, if you have a nested inline in a leader, then the white-space
> for the inline will be treated...
Is there an indication in the spec that whitespace around use-content 
leader patterns should be treated any different? If not, I would 
include it into the normal white space handling.

> For the rest only a few minor updates to related test-cases:
> - block_white-space-collapse_2.xml: see info disabled-testcases.xml
> - leader_text-align.xml / leader_toc.xml: update of the expected ipd
> values; they seemed to ignore preserved spaces
Didn't your patch fix the marker_bug.xml testcase? If so it can come out 
of the disabled-testcases.

> Cheers,
> Andreas


Reply via email to