Quote:
Originally Posted by cramoisi
@davidfor : on the principle, you're probably right but i've yet to see an example in a paperbook
|
You mean in a book that didn't rely on on-the-fly rendering to do this? And very likely had someone check things before it went to the printer?
Are you sure you meant to point to those? The report in the first one starts with:
Quote:
The character “NO-BREAK SPACE” (U+00A0) is incorrectly interpretated like
“fixed width no-break space”.
|
And most of the rest agrees.
And right down the bottom of this is a link to
Unicode Line Breaking Algorithm. And that has the following:
Quote:
When compression or expansion is allowed, a locally optimal line break seeks to balance the relative merits of the resulting amounts of compression and expansion for different line break candidates. 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. When expanding or compressing intercharacter space, the presence of U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE or U+2060 WORD JOINER is always ignored.
|
That says NO-BREAK SPACE should be treated the same as a normal space with respect to its width.