Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:02:51 +0200, Frédéric Grosshans wrote: Le 05/10/2016 à 15:57, Marcel Schneider a écrit : > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:27:44 +0900, Martin J. Dürst wrote: […] >>> >>> From a certain viewpoint (the chemist's in the example above), the >>> result may look arbitrary, but from another

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Le 05/10/2016 à 15:57, Marcel Schneider a écrit : On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:27:44 +0900, Martin J. Dürst wrote: On 2016/10/04 19:35, Marcel Schneider wrote: On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:47:09 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote: Later, the beta and gamma were encoded for phonetic notation, but not the

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:35:52 +, Martin Mueller wrote: > There is always a lot more history than reason in the world. > That said, given that alphabets have fixed numbers, it’s weird > that bits of super and subscripted letters appear in this or > that limited range but that you can’t cobble

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-05 16:17 GMT+02:00 Denis Jacquerye : > > There is no point about other letters than the basic alphabet > superscripted, > > as no French abbreviation exceeds this range (despite of what I believed > > in 2014, like many other people). > > What does that mean? How would

Re: My Annual Unicode Questions

Ken Whistler wrote: >> Q. Who understands Unicode? >> A. One student raised his hand. (This is an improvement on last year >> as no hand was raised last year) > > After 27 years of Unicode development, and with the standard (and its > accumulated ancillary standards, data, repositories, and

Re: My Annual Unicode Questions

On 10/5/2016 7:37 AM, Andre Schappo wrote: Q. Who understands Unicode? A. One student raised his hand. (This is an improvement on last year as no hand was raised last year) A brave soul, indeed! After 27 years of Unicode development, and with the standard (and its accumulated ancillary

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:17:30 +, Denis Jacquerye wrote; >> There is no point about other letters than the basic alphabet superscripted, >> as no French abbreviation exceeds this range (despite of what I believed >> in 2014, like many other people). > > What does that mean? How would that

My Annual Unicode Questions

This week is the first week of the new academic year at my university. One of the modules I co-teach is entitled "Programming for the WWW" which encompasses JavaScript and DHTML. This is a first year module. There were approx 70 students in the lab practical this morning. I asked them my annual

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

There is always a lot more history than reason in the world. That said, given that alphabets have fixed numbers, it’s weird that bits of super and subscripted letters appear in this or that limited range but that you can’t cobble a whole alphabet together in a consistent manner. If any , why

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> There is no point about other letters than the basic alphabet superscripted, > as no French abbreviation exceeds this range (despite of what I believed > in 2014, like many other people). What does that mean? How would that help for the French vernacular 3ème, or the Spanish C.ía. You might

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:27:44 +0900, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > On 2016/10/04 19:35, Marcel Schneider wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:47:09 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote: >> >>> Later, the beta and gamma were encoded for phonetic notation, but not the >>> alpha. >>> >>> As a result, you can write