DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUGĀ·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38507>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED ANDĀ·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38507





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-02-05 14:13 -------
Jeremias, no that is not it IMO. Knuth doesn't break between elements as such. 
The glue or penalty element itself is the break opportunity and is discarded 
when used as a break. Therefore, IMO we are not breaking before or after a 
space or NBSP but at the space/NBSP.

The problem is the coding model used for Knuth element element generation for 
spaces is flawed. What is done is that the only difference between normal space 
and NBSP is an infinite penalty at the beginning of the sequence. However, some 
sequences are pretty long and involve multiple pen-glue combinations and 
therefore break opportunities further into the sequence. We probably need to 
separate this more cleanly. Have one function for non breaking elastic elements 
(e.g. NBSP) and one function for breaking eleastic elements (e.g. SPACE). The 
non breaking sequences are probably very simple:

1. Justified text: pen INF + elastic glue
2. All other justification modes: either just a box of the width of the space 
or pen INF + fixed width glue.

Curious what Luca and others think. Are the above two cases OK for NBSP or have 
I oversimplified and missed something, that is for the text-align values other 
then "justify", that is "start", "center", "end", is it enough to just reserve 
a fixed width for the NBSP?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Reply via email to