On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 10:22 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2005, at 17:02, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
>
> (been pondering a bit more over this, and...)
>
> > Et voilĂ , that seems to be where the real *flaw* is located, if you
> > ask me. It should care about glues at the beginning of a line --
> > which it seems to handle perfectly ATM--
>
> In fact, this may currently be handled 'too perfectly'. One of the
> testcases --block_white-space_2.xml-- fails because a leading non-
> breaking space is removed, contrary to the expectation.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I still think that it is unnecessary to remove
> the mentioned trailing white-space for trailing nested inlines in a
> paragraph in the FOTree.
>
> Only, I think I'm beginning to see what is meant by this paradox:
> > Besides that, I get the impression you're somewhat contradicting
> > yourself here:
> > - in the comment on the failing testcase you noted that 'These
> > tests fail because the Knuth element sequences for consecutive
> > whitespace are not correct.'
> > - and now you're saying that it's not a matter of generating the
> > correct element sequences
>

You still don't seem to quite get my point.

The Knuth algorithm (read the paper) deals only with box/pen/glue for 
the purpose of breaking lines and if it breaks a line it takes certain 
actions with respect to discarding pen/glue elements directly following 
the break it created. If it doesn't create a line break it leaves 
everything as it is. This means everything at the beginning and end of 
a paragraph is left untouched. line-feed-treatment at the beginning and 
end of a paragraph is not influenced by the Knuth algorithm and 
therefore cannot be controlled by whatever sequences we generate.

We can control line-feed-treatment at Knuth generated breaks by 
constructing the proper sequences which we will do eventually. But 
start/end paragraph is outside of that which is why I am keen to push 
it into the FO refinement stage (as it used to be).

>
> Would this be a correct assessment?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andreas

Manuel

Reply via email to