On Thursday 02 February 2006 16:49, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> 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. :-(

Jeremias,

looks good to me - which two spaces are you unsure about?

>
> 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
> > :-)
> >

Andreas,

the test was not written to check whitespace handling. Therefore the ipd 
test was based on the incorrect whitespace present before. You now 
correctly remove the two trailing spaces (2780mpt * 2) and therefore 
the ipd shrinks by 5560mpt. IMO my opinion all is fine and yes you had 
to adjust the test.

> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andreas
>
> Jeremias Maerki

Manuel

Reply via email to