On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +0000
Alastair Houghton <alastair_at_alastairs-place.net> wrote:
> Does anyone besides Marcel have any input on that idea? Is it worth
> writing a proposal to add SUPERSCRIPT and SUBSCRIPT? To give some
> examples:
>
> S^{té}
>
> U+0053 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S
> U+0074 LATIN SMALL LETTER T
> U+???? SUPERSCRIPT
> U+0065 LATIN SMALL LETTER E
> U+???? SUPERSCRIPT
> U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT
>
> i_{j}
>
> U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I
> U+0070 LATIN SMALL LETTER J
> U+???? SUBSCRIPT
>
> Perhaps the code points U+209E and U+209F could be used for SUBSCRIPT
> and SUPERSCRIPT respectively?
I would suggest using a pair of variation selectors instead. It's no
messier than ideographic compatibility characters, and I think it is
actually less messy. However, I would further suggest creating the
variation sequences only when the corresponding superscript or subscript
form does not exist.
Richard.
Received on Tue Jan 10 2017 - 14:51:46 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jan 10 2017 - 14:51:46 CST