From: Mark Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2007 - 19:04:34 CDT
BTW, http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/breaks.jsp is a demo that shows how
parens work differently in different contexts. Paste in some sample text
Sample Text(s). ユニコードとは(何)か？
On 7/25/07, Kenneth Whistler <email@example.com> wrote:
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> > The line breaking opportunities does not seem to handle some special
> > related to undesirable line breaks that are currently allowed.
> > This comes for example with parentheses, that currently always allow
> > breaks after or before them and text they surround.
> That's not how I read UAX #14. I could be wrong, of course, but
> reading the Example Pair Table, it seems clear that the table
> specifies that such junctures are *indirect* line break opportunities,
> but then that is the same treatment you get for any pair
> of alphabetic characters in sequence, also.
> And in particular, the relevant rules are:
> LB28 Do not break between alphabetics.
> AL × AL
> LB30 Do not break between letters, numbers, or ordinary symbols and
> opening or closing punctuation.
> (AL | NU) × OP
> CL × (AL | NU)
> Those rules seem *already* to be doing exactly what you seem to
> be asking for.
> Skipping over a fascinating excursion into French topynymy...
> > I can give another more common example where such linebreaks are
> > undesirable:
> > "un (ou plusieurs) mot(s)"
> > Note how the "s" plural mark in "mots" is marked as an alternative; it
> > not separable from the word it normally completes. inserting a linebreak
> > between "mot" and "(s)" would be wrong.
> And UAX #14 does not suggest that one do so. See LB30 cited above.
> > I propose disallowing line breaks around ***BOTH*** sides of:
> > * (parentheses), or parenthese-like characters like
> > * [square brackets],
> etc., etc.
> This is already handled correctly in UAX #14.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 26 2007 - 19:06:20 CDT