On 11/14/2011 4:56 PM, Zdenek Wagner wrote:
2011/11/14 Mike Maxwell<maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu>:
We are not (at least I am not) suggesting that everyone must use
the Unicode non-breaking space character, or etc. What we *are*
suggesting is that in Xe(La)Tex, we be *allowed* to use those
characters, and that they have their
You are allowed to use them, nothing prevents you.
At least one participant in this thread (or actually the related thread
"Whitespace in input"--the person in question is
msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca) has said:
> U+00A0 is an invalid character for TeX input
That sounds pretty much like prevention (although maybe you don't agree
with him).
But in fact, the last time I tried this, the NBSP character was
interpreted in the same way as an ASCII space, which is not what I want.
What I want (repeating myself again) is for such characters to--
>> have their Unicode-defined semantics, to the extent that
>> makes sense in XeTeX.
--just the same as I would expect XeTeX (or xdvipdfmx) to correctly
handle the visual re-ordering behavior of U+09C7 through U+09CC, or
U+093F (Devanagari vowel sign I).
> However, I would not like to think, why I have
> overful/underful boxes and opening hex editor to see what kind of
> space is written between words.
A number of alternatives to a hex editor have been pointed out:
1) color coding
2) using a font that has a representation of these code points
3) using any text editor that allows you to see the Unicode code point
of a character (I use jEdit this way, I'm sure many other editors offer
this support)
Again, this is not about _forcing_ anyone to use NBSP etc., it is about
_allowing_ their use *with the expected Unicode behavior.*
--
Mike Maxwell
maxw...@umiacs.umd.edu
"My definition of an interesting universe is
one that has the capacity to study itself."
--Stephen Eastmond
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
