Hi Andreas,

On 2015-07-24 Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> > On 2015-07-23 Jan Tosovsky wrote:
> >
> > Do you expect this difference should be further eliminated or your
> > patch is ready for incorporating into trunk?
> ...
> On the other hand, note that it does not (entirely) solve the original
> issue reported in FOP-1444, which seems to be more related to using
> fo:page-number-citation.

Are you referring to Pascal comment from 16/Oct/13? In this case I'd rather 
create a dedicated issue (if it is still relevant) as the original text and 
majority of comments is IMHO about incorrect alignment when a leader is 
surrounded with spaces. They can be either eliminated (as a workaround) or 
handled properly, which I believe is covered by your changes.

Are you getting the proper alignment when processing the original attachment?

> >
> > From my (naive) point of view, wouldn't be possible - during
> > processing whitespace - somehow process that fixed width box (if
> > breakOpportunity is false) in same way like in the second case (glue)?
> Possibly, but not sure if it would be worth the time and effort to
> investigate that right now.


> I keep staring at both lines, and wonder whether either one looks
> 'better' than the other, but I cannot decide... :)

I also believe no one will notice a difference. The most frequent use cases are 
TOCs, where the FO structure is same so there is no need to vaste time with 
further tweaking.

Thanks a lot for your valuable work!


Reply via email to