On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:30:54PM +0100, J.Pietschmann wrote: > On 25.11.2009 21:40, Simon Pepping wrote: > >When a language uses various alternative spelling rules, some > >descriptive suffix is appended to the file name, e.g. de_1901; users > >who prefer these pattern files over the default ones will have to > >rename the pattern files in the jar file. > > Hmm. I'd rather invent a FOP configuration for mapping the language(s) > given in the FO to hyphenation pattern names.
That is a good idea. Something like: <hyphenation code="de" use="de_1901"/> > >Classes: ... Since 3 September 2009 these classes are built into > >FOP. > > I'm a bit behind on the hyphenation front, but I thought the kind > of classes used in TeX hyphenation patterns aren't of much use > if the patterns use Unicode. There is a Unicode standard for > parsing words out of text: > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Word_Boundaries > aren't we using this already? We do not use that. It is my impression that classes are required for being able to build the hyphenation tree. Is that not so? Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
