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
