On 12/19/19, James Kass via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > There's a bug report for the LibreOffice application here... > https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41652 > ...which shows an interesting history of the situation.
LOL two years ago almost to the date Shriramana Sharma seems to have already *quoted* the Unicode Standard on this (https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41652#c30): <quote> The Unicode standard document http://unicode.org/reports/tr14/ clearly states that: When expanding or compressing interword space according to common typographical practice, only the spaces marked by U+0020 SPACE and U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE are subject to compression, and only spaces marked by U+0020 SPACE, U+00A0 NO-BREAK SPACE, and occasionally spaces marked by U+2009 THIN SPACE are subject to expansion. All other space characters normally have fixed width. </quote> But we have some people there on that bug saying that: <quote> While Unicode is an important standard, it's only of secondary importance to an office suite. Its primary goal is *not* creating a reference comformant implementation of the standard; rather, it should use the standard to the extent it needs to serve its users most. </quote> which is a 😒 approach in my eyes but well, that's how the real world is on many things. Anyhow the above comment is continued as: <quote> And if legacy requires that some statements of standard be violated to keep existing documents intact, that should be that way, until a better design is invented and implemented, which would make possible to please both sides. </quote> This means option #1 I mentioned earlier and which seems to already have been discussed in the bug discussion: provide a per-document option or at least a Word-compatibility option as to how to treat NBSP. -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा 𑀰𑁆𑀭𑀻𑀭𑀫𑀡𑀰𑀭𑁆𑀫𑀸