Adding break characters to Word

[Greg Pavlicek]

Word currently will 'break' text to the next line on a space or a hyphen.
Can this list of characters be added to? We have a need to break large
multi-chemical names where the text contains a /, and we would like Word to
also break text on that /, just like it would if we entered
"first-second-third-fourth" except that we are working with
"first/second/third/fourth". Thanks !!!

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

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.

 

[Klaus Linke]

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

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

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

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

 

[Klaus Linke]

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

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

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>

 

[Klaus Linke]

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

 

[Klaus Linke]

the link will continue to work.

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

Klaus

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Ah, good point, of course.

 

[Pam Midboe]

Hello Klaus -- I have a document with a large number of lengthy URLs that
need to work, but they often span 2 lines so I need to add a space and then
the URL doesn't work anymore. How do I get a long URL to wrap without
affecting its "clickability"? I'm using Word 2003. Thanks in advance for your
assistance/advice.

- Pam

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Make sure that you edit only the "text to display" and not the underlying
URL itself.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Pam Midboe]

How do I distinguish the "text to display" vs. URL? I guess the difference is
that you cannot use the no width optional break in a "live" URL but you can
use it in a text URL display that may not be "live," but could be copied into
your Browser. When copying a URL with no width optional break characters into
the Browser, the Browser ignores the NWOB chars., and the copied URL llink
works.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

If you right-click and choose Edit Hyperlink, you will see that there is a
distinction between "Text to display" and "Address." If you edit the URL in
normal text view, you are not editing the underlying hyperlink; to do that,
you have to Alt+F9 and edit the HYPERLINK field.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

 

[Terry Farrell]

In fact, if you use the Insert | Hyperlink (Ctrl+K) dialog, you can paste
the hyperlink into the ADDRESS box at the bottom of the dialog and then type
Click Here in the TEXT TO DISPLAY box at the top of the dialog. You can also
edit the screen tip (the popup when you hover the pointer over Click Here)
and assign what you want it to display. By default, the popup will display
the long URL; but as these are often nonsense, you can change it to say 'BBC
News' or whatever is appropriate).

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Exactly. The only caveat is that, if the document is to be printed (even to
a PDF that may not retain the links), then you'll want to have the URL in
the printed text, since "Click here" won't be very helpful to readers of
hard copy!

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org