unicode no-break spaces
Hello, This used to work with MKIV, but with today's version, it does not: \starttext X X THIN SPACE (U+2009)\blank X X NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE (U+202F)\blank X X NO-BREAK SPACE (U+00A0)\blank \stoptext Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past? Cheers, Peter -- Contact information: http://pmrb.free.fr/contact/
Peter Münster wrote:
Hello,
This used to work with MKIV, but with today's version, it does not:
\starttext X X THIN SPACE (U+2009)\blank X X NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE (U+202F)\blank X X NO-BREAK SPACE (U+00A0)\blank \stoptext
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past?
repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote:
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past?
repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization)
"~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example: \starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$ $3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote:
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past? repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization)
"~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example:
\starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$
$3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext
no surprise, as math has its own spacing model so it all depends on the definitions; i'm not even sure if we shoule support an active ~ in math mode at all Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 07 June 2009 14:10:10 Hans Hagen wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote:
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past?
repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization)
"~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example:
\starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$
$3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext
no surprise, as math has its own spacing model so it all depends on the definitions; i'm not even sure if we shoule support an active ~ in math mode at all
I do not have any strong feelings about this, but do believe that "~" has always provided an unbreakable white space in TeX, both in text and math mode. I also feel that "~" is more readable than "\,". Alan
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 14:10:10 Hans Hagen wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote:
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past? repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization) "~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example:
\starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$
$3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext no surprise, as math has its own spacing model so it all depends on the definitions; i'm not even sure if we shoule support an active ~ in math mode at all
I do not have any strong feelings about this, but do believe that "~" has always provided an unbreakable white space in TeX, both in text and math mode. I also feel that "~" is more readable than "\,".
The activeness of ~ isn't that important, but there really should be a non-breakable space in math mode, and an active ~ is the most logical choice because of 20 years of TeX input. You can pick something else, but it is definately needed, and it should be shorter than "\penalty10000 \ " Best wishes, Taco
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 14:10:10 Hans Hagen wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote:
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past? repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization) "~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example:
\starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$
$3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext no surprise, as math has its own spacing model so it all depends on the definitions; i'm not even sure if we shoule support an active ~ in math mode at all
I do not have any strong feelings about this, but do believe that "~" has always provided an unbreakable white space in TeX, both in text and math mode. I also feel that "~" is more readable than "\,".
The activeness of ~ isn't that important, but there really should be a non-breakable space in math mode, and an active ~ is the most logical choice because of 20 years of TeX input. You can pick something else, but it is definately needed, and it should be shorter than "\penalty10000 \ "
hm, currently ~ is \penalty \plustenthousand\space which gives no space in math as spaces are ignored i have this definition probably for a reason so i tend to be careful with a change in text mode ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday 07 June 2009 16:55:59 Hans Hagen wrote:
Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 14:10:10 Hans Hagen wrote:
Alan BRASLAU wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 13:12:11 Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote: > Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the > past?
repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization)
"~", by the way, appears not to be respected in math mode; example:
\starttext $3\times 10^{-9}~\text{m}$
$3\times 10^{-9}\,\text{m}$ \stoptext
no surprise, as math has its own spacing model so it all depends on the definitions; i'm not even sure if we shoule support an active ~ in math mode at all
I do not have any strong feelings about this, but do believe that "~" has always provided an unbreakable white space in TeX, both in text and math mode. I also feel that "~" is more readable than "\,".
The activeness of ~ isn't that important, but there really should be a non-breakable space in math mode, and an active ~ is the most logical choice because of 20 years of TeX input. You can pick something else, but it is definately needed, and it should be shorter than
"\penalty10000 \ "
hm, currently ~ is
\penalty \plustenthousand\space
which gives no space in math as spaces are ignored
i have this definition probably for a reason so i tend to be careful with a change in text mode
Reviving an older thread - still a problem. What is the current, proper means of inputing an unbreakable white space? 1. in math mode; 2. in text mode. (I suggest that the same symbol should work in both cases). Use of unicode nbsp can be problematic (and sometimes unreadable). Minimal example: \chapter{X~ray} % OK \startchapter[title={X~ray}] % no good - shows "~" in the bookmarks! (of course, the examples above are "silly" as such a short word would not get broken, unless the width was *really* small...) Alan
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Hans Hagen wrote:
Peter Münster wrote:
Hello,
This used to work with MKIV, but with today's version, it does not:
\starttext X X THIN SPACE (U+2009)\blank X X NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE (U+202F)\blank X X NO-BREAK SPACE (U+00A0)\blank \stoptext
Should this work, or should we rather use "~" and "\," as in the past?
repaired in next beta (was unwanted side effect of optimization)
Thanks! Is there any difference between "THIN SPACE" and "NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE" in ConTeXt? Should there be a difference (perhaps "THIN SPACE" breakable)? Cheers, Peter -- Contact information: http://pmrb.free.fr/contact/
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:
Should there be a difference (perhaps "THIN SPACE" breakable)?
Yes, U+2009 is supposed to be breakable.
Ok, but not the case in ConTeXt: \starttext \hsize1pt bla bla \stoptext Cheers, Peter -- Contact information: http://pmrb.free.fr/contact/
participants (5)
-
Alan BRASLAU -
Arthur Reutenauer -
Hans Hagen -
Peter Münster -
Taco Hoekwater