On 30/10/18 17:01 I wrote: > A Unicode-conformant way to represent > such abbreviations would IMO use U+1D49 followed by U+0301: ,ᵉ́,.
Works actually fine in my browser. My apologies to font designers and foundries, already supporting the combining diacritics with superscript Latin letters. Only in my text editor it didn’t work, hence the commas instead of quotes bracketing the literal. > We remember that The Unicode Standard explicitly specifies that the > glyphs of all superscript or modifier letters of a script shall be equalized. There is too much interpretation in that statement. TUS actually specifies that no difference of usage is intended by a difference in naming schemes, i.e. MODIFIER LETTERs shall not be discriminated from those letters having SUPERSCRIPT in their name. > No ransom note effect is allowed in Unicode-conformant fonts It may not be explicitely prohibited, though it is not Unicode conformant. Best regards, Marcel
