From: Luke-Jr (luke@dashjr.org)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2010 - 12:43:13 CDT
On Monday, July 26, 2010 02:16:23 am Kent Karlsson wrote:
> There are more superscripted letters than i and n that are encoded; among
> them are:
>
> 1D47;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL B;Lm;0;L;<super> 0062
> 1D50;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M;Lm;0;L;<super> 006D
> 02E2;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL S;Lm;0;L;<super> 0073
> 1D57;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL T;Lm;0;L;<super> 0074
Not a single font on my system renders these characters in a way that looks
like the "exponentized" letters for Tonal unit divisions/multiplications. In
virtually all cases, the height of the small forms are half the height they
should be. Furthermore, almost none of them render them all at the same base-
level-- in particular, the base level of M.L.S. S tends to be significantly
higher than all the rest. While these might be considered "font issues", I can
only assume from the consistency in them that it these appearances are
intentionally due to some existing use of the characters, and adjusting them
to be of uniform base/height appropriate for Tonal would "ruin" that usage.
Given this scenario, is it proper to encode perhaps one set of TONAL MODIFIER
LETTER SMALL _ suitable for use, are we stuck using these mismatching existing
encodings, or perhaps someone has better advice for handling the conflicting
uses?
Thanks,
Luke
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 30 2010 - 12:45:40 CDT