https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43474
--- Comment #16 from Andreas L. Delmelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-26 11:30:42 PST --- (In reply to comment #15) > I'm sorry to chime in so late but I don't think there is anything to do on > FOP's side WRT this issue. On the one hand, I agree. I have mentioned this already in the past: wrap-option="wrap" does not include an /obligation/ to perform line-wrapping. > If there is no opportunity to break inside the word > then there's nothing FOP can do. Wrong. At least, slightly unfortunate choice of words: FOP /can/ definitely do /something/ in this case. > The wrap-option property is meant to trigger > the line-breaking mechanism in its usual accepted meaning; that is, break > between words or at hyphenation points inside them, not at every letter if > available space is abnormally low, or the word abnormally big. At least, > that's > my understanding of this property. IIC, there's a subtle difference between line-WRAPPING and line-BREAKING. Line-wrapping being the more 'blind' of the two, if you will (simply wrap to fit the text into the available space). The Recommendation remains vague in this respect (and purposely so, I think). It does not prescribe /how/ the text should be wrapped or broken. We have decided to follow Unicode, but ultimately, we always have the last word. That is: if we choose to provide an additional fallback mechanism, there is no relevant specification that makes this wrong. > In my opinion, this issue must be handled upstream. That is, zero-width space > characters (U+200B) must be introduced at applicable places inside the word to > provide FOP with more break opportunities. A legitimate option, but not always as easily done as it said. To get the effect of real dynamic content-wrapping (fit as many characters on the line as you can), you would force the user to insert a ZWSP in between every two characters (either that or they should make a choice of every so-many characters). > But I don't think this is FOP's responsibility to do that. See also the > following FAQ entry: > http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/faq.html#cells-overflow Maybe not, but it would mean a big relief for many users, I think, if FOP would take this responsibility, even if it is not mandated... -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
