Re: MODIFIER LETTER or SUPERSCRIPT?

From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Mon Apr 12 2010 - 12:58:20 CDT

  • Next message: AndrĂ© Szabolcs Szelp: "Re: preparing a PUA specification (for historical Polish text)"

    Petr Tomasekk asked:

    > However there doesn't exist an unicode codepoint for "LATIN SUPERSCRIPT
    > SMALL LETTER E", "LATIN SUPERSCRIPT SMALL LETTER A", etc (although subscripts
    > do exist, see U+2090, U+2091, U+2092).
    >
    > There are however "MODIFIER LETTER SMALL A" (U+1D43), etc. codepoints.
    > (See U+1D00..ff).
    >
    > So my question: wouldn't it be much cleaner to add more "LATIN SUPERSCRIPT"
    > letters to unicode? Would a proposal had a chance to be accepted?

    No. It would be an unnecessary duplication. U+1D43 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL A,
    etc. are precisely what you need.

    The reason why there isn't a MODIFIER LETTER SMALL N encoded
    between U+1D50 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M and U+1D51 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL ENG
    is because U+207F SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER N already was
    encoded and could serve that function. Don't worry about the
    name differences, which are a historical artifact of the sequence
    in which characters came into the standard.

    --Ken

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 14 2010 - 03:13:47 CDT