My gut feeling here is that it is now more correct than before but there
are still two trailing spaces in the area tree that I'd expected not to
be there. But then, I still haven't done my homework concerning
whitespace handling. :-(
On 01.02.2006 22:14:11 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 21:51, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> > ...
> > Alright! The space has finally disappeared, but...
> > I still end up with the same failing testcase:
> > inline_border_padding.xml
> > If you look at the sixth block, somehow an ipd of 118.83pt is
> > expected, but I currently get an ipd of 113.27pt. Can anyone
> > explain where the expected value comes from? If I look at the
> > resulting area tree, then I'm under the impression that the output
> > is A-OK... Am I missing something?
> > May it be altered to 113.27pt? (= *my* expectation :-))
> > Anyway, I'm reluctant to commit until this one final riddle is solved.
> On second thought, I'm just going to change the expected value...
> What's 5.56/72 (+/- 2mm) anyway? Right! Peanuts.
> If anyone feels differently, they're most welcome to explain why :-)