Ah, interesting. I think we agree on the behavior, the question is to make sure it is correctly phrased. those after the first one should absolutely wrap, but for the first one, what that sentence tries to say is that since they're not hanging or collapsing, they should be wrapped to the next line together with whatever is before them, going back as far as needed to find a wrapping opportunity.

So if you have a b  and room for three characters, the resulting layout should be

|a  |
|b  |

as the overflowing space and the b before it get wrapped.

But I can see how the existing phrasing can be read to suggest something else. I suspect that the easiest way to make the sentence unambiguously correct is to just delete ; those that overflow must wrap to the next line, as that's just meant to be a clarification anyway.

Combined with for break-spaces, a soft wrap opportunity exists after every space and every tab. from earlier in the same section, that's enough to get the normative behavior we want.

I think it would be nice to find an alternative wording instead of just deleting it, and I think the one you suggested is differently misleading, but I'm not too sure about a better one.

If we can't find a better working, I think it's better to remove the text as you suggested. However, I still see a bit confusing that the spec states so categorically that "hanging is not allowed" when there are cases where it is.

OK, made some edits. @javifernandez Let us know if that works for you!

The change looks good. Thanks !