Re: Superscript and Subscript Characters in General Use

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/3/2017 4:24 PM, Marcel Schneider wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:31:42 +0100, Christoph Päper wrote:
>>
>>>> Among the possibilities, you include Unicode subscripts.
>>> Just for the sake of completeness.
>> This tends to conclude that preformatted subscripts are really an option here.
>
> Not so. You yourself quote this statement:
>
> | Superscript modifier letters are intended for cases where the letters carry
> | a specific meaning, as in phonetic transcription systems, and are not
> | a substitute for generic styling mechanisms for superscripting of text,
> | as for footnotes, mathematical and chemical expressions, and the like.
>
> It is clear that the uses that you advocate go against this intent.
>
> Therefore, your conclusion that this is "an option" is nothing more than a very personal
> opinion on your part (and one that many people here would consider misguided if
> presented as general recommendation).
>
> A./

As long as this is being discussed, what about the historic practice of using M‘ (nowadays often seen as M’ instead) in Scottish names—e.g., M‘Donald—as a typographic substitute for M(superscript c)?

-- 
John W Kennedy
Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of incompetence and criminality.