The incorrect presence of break opportunities at SOT in LineBreakTest.txt is a known issue, documented in the erratum dated 2008-April-28 at http://www.unicode.org/errata/. The correct result at SOT is a no-break, in accordance to rule LB2.
Regards, L. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Konstantin Ritt Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 8:10 AM To: Mark Davis ☕ Cc: Asmus Freytag; Masaaki Shibata; [email protected] Subject: Re: Questionable lines on LineBreakTest.txt 2010/6/8 Mark Davis ☕ <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > If the test files are "known to be in error", then those "known" cases need > to be actually communicated back to the UTC; sitting on them doesn't do > anyone any good. > > I have not had a chance to investigate, but this particular case may be > covered by the description in > http://unicode.org/Public/6.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest-6.0.0d4.html: > > The Line Break tests use tailoring of numbers described in Example 7 of > Section 8.2 Examples of Customization. indeed. LB24 says: The default line breaking algorithm approximates this with the following (LB25) rule. Note that some cases have already been handled, such as ‘9,’, ‘[9’. For a tailoring that supports the regular expression directly, as well as a key to the notation see Section 8.2, Examples of Customization. and there is a note in LineBreakTest*.txt file: Note: The Line Break tests use tailoring of numbers described in Example 7 of Section 8.2 Examples of Customization. They also differ from the results produced by a pair table implementation in sequences like: ZW SP CL. but I have yet another question: why every test in LineBreakTest.txt assumes break opportunity at the start-of-text while LB2 says: Never break at the start of text ? if these tests are for "out of context" usage, where can i read such note? Konstantin
