Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?
oren.watson at gmail.com
Thu Oct 6 11:04:17 CDT 2016
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Oren Watson <oren.watson at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>
If this is a real need, why not petition more software to allow the use of
the U+8C partial line up and U+8B partial line down characters for the this
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi>
> 6.10.2016, 17:55, Frédéric Grosshans wrote:
> Le 06/10/2016 à 09:21, Marcel Schneider a écrit :
>>> I did never see that. Would you show us some examples to look up? Iʼm
>>> whether they could be managed without accented superscripts.
>>> Anyway, combining diacritics should be placeable on superscripts as well.
>> Like «3ᵉ̀ᵐᵉ» ? It already works on my laptop (Thunderbird in Ubuntu 16.04)
>> The superscripted part is 1D49 + 0300 + 1D50 + 1D49, and there is
>> nothing to add.
> It’s fine that it works in some environment(s), but it would be
> unrealistic to expect it to work generally. In most environments, assuming
> the font used supports the characters involved in the first place, the
> result is probably a grave accent struck over the superscript e, in a
> rather ugly way.
> Even though Unicode superscript (and subscript) characters have a lot of
> practical use in many contexts, this isn’t really one of them. In a case
> like this, in most environments, and especially if you want the text to
> display well in different environments, the solution is to use just “3ème”,
> perhaps with some method (“above” the character level) used to format the
> letters as superscript, when not limited to plain text – but I’m afraid
> most fonts don’t have a superscript glyph for “é” available, so it would
> usually be best to give up the superscripting idea here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode