Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Thu Nov 25 2004 - 05:54:29 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Misuse of 8th bit [Was: My Querry]"

    On 25/11/2004 01:27, Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > ...
    >
    >>
    >> Also the following clarification is being proposed for UAX #16 on
    >> line breaking (public review issue #56):
    >
    >
    > UTR#16 is UTF-EBCDIC, you must mean UAX#14.

    Indeed. Sorry.

    >
    >
    >> ...
    >> But this draft also states:
    >>
    >>> when NBSP follows SPACE, there is a break opportunity after the
    >>> SPACE and NBSP will go as visible space onto the next line.
    >>
    >>
    >> This is different from what Asmus stated above: "The sequence SPACE
    >> NBSP *does* not allow a break
    >
    >
    > my editing mistake in composing my message to you. If you check the
    > first sentence of http://www.unicode.org/report/tr14-16.html#GL you
    > will see why it's *does* allow the break.

    404 error. I think you mean
    http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-16.html#GL.

    But this sentence is the proposed amendment. I was wondering if this is
    a material change to the algorithm, or just a clarification. And I
    thought maybe you were describing the current situation and ignoring the
    proposed change. So I looked back at the edition of UAX #14 which is
    still current, http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/. It seems that part
    of the proposed change is to move the rule "Don’t break before or after
    NBSP", currently part of LB11b, to after rule LB12 "Break after spaces",
    making a proposed new rule LB13 - in accordance with the note "Many
    existing implementations reverse the order of precedence between rules
    LB11b and LB12." The change of ordering of course implies a change of
    priority of the rules.

    So, Asmus, it seems to me that you were right the first time. According
    to the current standard, there is no line breaking opportunity in the
    middle of <SPACE, NBSP>. But there is a proposed change to make this a
    line breaking opportunity. Is that correct? Perhaps this part of the
    change to UAX #14 has already been approved in principle by the UTC (as
    no doubt there was a discussion of issues related to NBSP as part of the
    discussion of the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal), but formally it is still
    part of the public review issue. 

    -- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 25 2004 - 12:37:10 CST