Allow \u202f in White Space Normalization #692
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@addie9800 Honestly I don't know why we're normalizing whitespaces here in the first place. |
|
Ok 🤣, in this case, I would suggest removing it. It does not seem to have any effect on existing test cases. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The Publisher Coverage caught an error for this article: https://freebeacon.com/trump-administration/trump-slaps-tariffs-on-colombia-after-its-israel-bashing-marxist-president-rejects-us-deportation-flights/. It turns out that the reason is that the unicode symbol
\u202fis embedded in the links of the second image, which for some implementations of regex (also apparently of therepackage) is covered under\s, where as for others it is not leading to unpredictable behavior. I'm not really sure, whether to fix it or let this article slide. Then again, not sure how common the issue is. You can observe the issue here: https://regex101.com/r/rv9Zxp/1 You see this matcher does not find any matches (at least in Chrome), if you then go to regexr.com and use the pattern\son this string: