Hi Tobias, Am 14.11.2011 um 18:42 schrieb Tobias Schoel:
> > > Am 14.11.2011 18:30, schrieb [email protected]: [snip, snip] > Now we come to the trouble of Unicode specifying a line-breaking algorithm ( > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-26.html ), which probably isn't > exactly TeX's. I'm not into these algorithms, so I can't compare. But I would > ask some Master of this Art to speak up about this conflict. I went and briefly look at the annex. In the beginning it states that the annexes are not necessarily a requirement unless mentioned in the standard! I did not check the standard, but as you read on the description of the LBA is not mandatory at all. Furthermore, it more or less describes which characters are directly involved with line breaking (top of table 1). The rest is just a suggest how one Might go about achieving line breaking. This is not a standard at all. Since TeX has its own line breaking algorithms we need not be interrested with the content of this annex as far as Unicode is concerned. What you should be aware of is that the LBA is intended as an aide for a preprocessor to a more elaborate line breaking algorithm. It has been approved for printing, but no where does it state that it must be followed nor that it is complete. In other words it is merely a suggestion. There is no conflict per se. Just another way of dealing with line breaking. There is no real standard for line breaking. It is more or less a matter of taste, style and aesthetics. (Yes, there are many conventions that should be observed, and many are grammatical in nature). regards Keith. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
