Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?
khaledhosny at eglug.org
Sat Oct 1 03:29:33 CDT 2016
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:31:58PM +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 30.9.2016, 19:11, Leonardo Boiko wrote:
> > The Unicode codepoints are not intended as a place to store
> > typographically variant glyphs (much like the Unicode "italic"
> > characters aren't designed as a way of encoding italic faces).
> There is no disagreement on this. What I was pointing at was that when using
> rich text or markup, it is complicated or impossible to have typographically
> correct glyphs used (even when they exist), whereas the use of Unicode
> codepoints for subscript or superscript characters may do that in a much
> simpler way.
That is not generally true. In TeX you get true superscript glyphs by
default. On the web you can use font features in CSS to get them as
well, provided that you are using a font that supports them.
More information about the Unicode