I remembered that Word doesn't insert the actual "zero width space," but I
can never remember the Unicode numbers for these things, much less the
rationale of them. I figured you'd come along behind me and clean up the
mess. g But now that I read the distinction, I'm wondering, in the case of
a URL, wouldn't you want the space NOT to be considered a word
boundary--that is, the entire URL is a single word?
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
"Klaus Linke" wrote in message
...
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Use the No-Width Optional Break from the Special Characters tab of Insert
| Symbol. Note that it has a rather strange appearance if you have
nonprinting characters displayed.
Also note that both Word 2003 and 2007 don't actually insert a no-width
optional break (or "zero width space" as everybody but MS calls it:
U+200B), but a zero width non-joiner (U+200C).
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ch15.pdf
"The U+200B "zero width space" indicates a word boundary, except that it
has no width.
[...] The zero-width spaces are not to be confused with zero-width joiner
characters. U+200C "zero width non-joiner" and U+200D "zero width joiner"
have no effect on word boundaries"
The latter two "provide a way to influence joining and ligature glyph
selection".
Microsoft's naming and usage seem wrong to me. I think I bugged it in the
Wd2007 Beta, but it wasn't fixed.
The only change that was made is that both characters now look the same.
Formerly, U+200C had a different look, with non-printing characters
displayed. At least that was the case in Word 2000...
Klaus