On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:38 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Dec 30, 2005, at 14:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <snip/> > 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 patch?
> 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. <snip/> > Cheers, > > Andreas Regards Manuel
