From: Suzanne S. Barnhill on
Well, Word is quite happy to break a line at the "No Width Optional Break,"
so it works for me (though I rarely use it). And I have always wondered
whether the break would make the URL nonclickable (if it were clickable);
what you quoted suggested to me that it would not (in the same mysterious
way that wrapped URLs in these NG posts can still be clickable). Obviously,
I haven't wondered enough to bother to test it. <g>

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Klaus Linke" <info(a)fotosatz-kaufmann.de> wrote in message
news:OZRS%234T3IHA.2424(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill(a)mvps.org> wrote:
>>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>
>
> There wasn't anything wrong with what you wrote.
>
> I'm no expert, just trying to guess how things should be from the Unicode
> documentation I quoted :-)
>
>> 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?
>
> From what I understand, a word boundary (in the Unicode Standard) is
> pretty much by definition a place where you can have a line break.
> It is something notoriously ambiguous though. Even inside Word, for
> example, VBA has a one idea of what a "word" is, "Tools > Word count" has
> another (arriving at a different word count for the same text).
>
> Klaus
>
>


From: Klaus Linke on
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill(a)mvps.org> wrote:
> Well, Word is quite happy to break a line at the "No Width Optional
> Break," so it works for me (though I rarely use it).

For the time being, it does... Until MS fixes the mess.
U+200C isn't supposed to mark a word break, so it shouldn't affect how Word
breaks the line.

> And I have always wondered whether the break would make the URL
> nonclickable (if it were clickable); what you quoted suggested to me that
> it would not (in the same mysterious way that wrapped URLs in these NG
> posts can still be clickable). Obviously, I haven't wondered enough to
> bother to test it. <g>

Once a hyperlink is inserted (say by using the AutoCorrect Option >
AutoFormat as you type), the display text and the actual hyperlink are
separate, so if you then insert the Unicode character (whichever you
choose), the link will continue to work.
If I'd need to, I'd stick with U+200B (... type 200B, then Alt+X).

Klaus

From: Klaus Linke on
> the link will continue to work.

The character will allow the hyperlink to break, but it won't break the
it...

:-P Klaus

From: Suzanne S. Barnhill on
Ah, good point, of course.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Klaus Linke" <info(a)fotosatz-kaufmann.de> wrote in message
news:eszwq$U3IHA.2332(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnhill(a)mvps.org> wrote:
>> Well, Word is quite happy to break a line at the "No Width Optional
>> Break," so it works for me (though I rarely use it).
>
> For the time being, it does... Until MS fixes the mess.
> U+200C isn't supposed to mark a word break, so it shouldn't affect how
> Word breaks the line.
>
>> And I have always wondered whether the break would make the URL
>> nonclickable (if it were clickable); what you quoted suggested to me that
>> it would not (in the same mysterious way that wrapped URLs in these NG
>> posts can still be clickable). Obviously, I haven't wondered enough to
>> bother to test it. <g>
>
> Once a hyperlink is inserted (say by using the AutoCorrect Option >
> AutoFormat as you type), the display text and the actual hyperlink are
> separate, so if you then insert the Unicode character (whichever you
> choose), the link will continue to work.
> If I'd need to, I'd stick with U+200B (... type 200B, then Alt+X).
>
> Klaus
>