Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: > There are others, for example, in Dutch, the letter "v" and in "van" > is pronounced in dialects in continuous variations between [f] and > [v] depending on the timing of the fricative and the following > vowel. Continuous variation is a

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Hello everyone. The level of discourse in this thread is beginning to deteriorate. Please rein in some of the excesses or the thread may have to be terminated. Regards from your, -- Sarasvati

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10/10/2016 05:36 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote: On 2016-10-10, Michael Everson wrote: Apparently it’s used to good effect in mathematics, though a great deal of TeX material appears printed and has an obvious “TeX” feel It's for printing, so of course it appears

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 23:39, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Hans Åberg wrote: > > What do you mean? The IPA in narrow transcription is intended to > provide as detailed a description as a human mind can manage of > sounds. It is designed for phonemic

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Le lun. 10 oct. 2016 22:32, Julian Bradfield a écrit : > On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: > > It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the > original idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics? > > I don't see the

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10 Oct 2016, at 22:36, Julian Bradfield wrote: > You're a dilettante publisher using low-end professional graphic > design tools to publish.  Best, Michael Everson http://evertype.com/catalogue.html

RE: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Hans Åberg wrote: What do you mean? The IPA in narrow transcription is intended to provide as detailed a description as a human mind can manage of sounds. >>> >>> It is designed for phonemic transcriptions, cf., >>>

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Michael Everson wrote: > On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:58, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> That's an interesting use of "proprietary" you have there, but I > You have to have special knowledge and special software to use it. That's not what

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 23:01, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >>> On 10 Oct 2016, at 22:15, Julian Bradfield wrote: >>> What do you mean? The IPA in narrow transcription is intended to >>>

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:58, Julian Bradfield wrote: > On 2016-10-10, Michael Everson wrote: >> I can’t use LaTeX notation. I don’t use that proprietary system. And don’t >> you dare tell me that I am benighted, or using Word. Neither applies. > >

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >> On 10 Oct 2016, at 22:15, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> What do you mean? The IPA in narrow transcription is intended to >> provide as detailed a description as a human mind can manage of >> sounds. It doesn't care

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 22:31, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >> It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the >> original idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics? > > I don't see the

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Michael Everson wrote: > I can’t use LaTeX notation. I don’t use that proprietary system. And don’t > you dare tell me that I am benighted, or using Word. Neither applies. That's an interesting use of "proprietary" you have there, but I suppose with your

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Philippe Verdy wrote: > Not relevant! Here were'e not speaking about punctuation between words, but > inclusion within words in phonetic trancrtiptions where even word > separation is not always relevant and punctuation us almost absent. > There's no case in

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:24, Julian Bradfield wrote: > >> We need reliable plain-text notation systems. Otherwise distinctions we wish >> to encode may be lost. > > We have no need to make such distinctions in "plain text”. You mightn’t. > It's convenient to have

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-10 22:04 GMT+02:00 Julian Bradfield : > On 2016-10-10, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > 2016-10-10 18:04 GMT+02:00 Hans Åberg : > >> > On 10 Oct 2016, at 15:24, Julian Bradfield > >> wrote: > > >> > The

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 22:15, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >>> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:42, Doug Ewell wrote: >>> Hans Åberg wrote: I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: > It is possible to write math just using ASCII and TeX, which was the original > idea of TeX. Is that want you want for linguistics? I don't see the need to do everything in plain text. Long ago, I spent a great deal of time getting my

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Michael Everson wrote: > On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:04, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> >> Linguists don't need internationalization. They use IPA or other notations. > > We need reliable plain-text notation systems. Otherwise distinctions

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10/10/2016 1:14 PM, Michael Everson wrote: On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:04, Julian Bradfield wrote: Linguists don't need internationalization. They use IPA or other notations. We need reliable plain-text notation systems. Otherwise distinctions we wish to encode may

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:04, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > Linguists don't need internationalization. They use IPA or other notations. We need reliable plain-text notation systems. Otherwise distinctions we wish to encode may be lost. Michael

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:42, Doug Ewell wrote: >> Hans Åberg wrote: >>> I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic transcriptions >>> [1], with a requirement to distinguish phonemes within each given >>> language.

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:43, Julian Bradfield wrote: > Linguists aren't stupid, and they have no need for plain text > representations of all their symbology. Linguists write in Word or > LaTeX (or sometimes HTML), all of which can produce a wide range of > symbols

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2016-10-10 18:04 GMT+02:00 Hans Åberg : >> > On 10 Oct 2016, at 15:24, Julian Bradfield >> wrote: >> > The alveolar click with percussive flap hasn't made it into the >> > standard IPA, but

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:42, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Hans Åberg wrote: > >> I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic transcriptions >> [1], with a requirement to distinguish phonemes within each given >> language. > > From the Wikipedia article you cited: > > "For

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >> On 10 Oct 2016, at 15:24, Julian Bradfield wrote: >> The alveolar click with percussive flap hasn't made it into the >> standard IPA, but in ExtIPA it's [ǃ¡] (preferably kerned together). > There is ‼ DOUBLE

RE: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Hans Åberg wrote: > I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic transcriptions > [1], with a requirement to distinguish phonemes within each given > language. >From the Wikipedia article you cited: "For example, one particular pronunciation of the English word little may be

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-10 18:04 GMT+02:00 Hans Åberg : > > > On 10 Oct 2016, at 15:24, Julian Bradfield > wrote: > > > > On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: > >> I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic transcriptions > >> [1], with a

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10 Oct 2016, at 14:24, Julian Bradfield wrote: > But the IPA has many diacritics exactly for this purpose. The velarized > English coda /l/ is usually described as [l̴] with U+0334 COMBINING TILDE > OVERLAY, 026B ɫ LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH MIDDLE TILDE > The

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 15:24, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: >> I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic transcriptions >> [1], with a requirement to distinguish phonemes within each given >> language. For

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-10, Hans Åberg wrote: > I think that IPA might be designed for broad phonetic transcriptions > [1], with a requirement to distinguish phonemes within each given > language. For example, the English /l/ is thicker than the Swedish, > but in IPA, there is only one

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 03:13, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Denis Jacquerye wrote: > >> Regarding the superscript q, in some rare cases, it is used to >> indicate pharyngealization or a pharyngeal consonant instead of the >> Latin letter pharyngeal voiced fricative U+0295 ʕ, the

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Denis Jacquerye wrote: Regarding the superscript q, in some rare cases, it is used to indicate pharyngealization or a pharyngeal consonant instead of the Latin letter pharyngeal voiced fricative U+0295 ʕ, the modifier letter reversed glottal stop U+02C1 ˁ or the modifier letter small reversed

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Regarding the superscript q, in some rare cases, it is used to indicate pharyngealization or a pharyngeal consonant instead of the Latin letter pharyngeal voiced fricative U+0295 ʕ, the modifier letter reversed glottal stop U+02C1 ˁ or the modifier letter small reversed glottal stop U+02E4 ˤ.

Re: Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters? / Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 13:00:30 +0200, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: […] > > I would recommend that any proposal for additional game symbols provide > clear evidence for why those particular game symbols are required to be > exchanged in plain text, in a way that many, many other possible game > symbols are

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:22:21 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > Marcel Schneider wrote: > >> According to my hypothesis and while waiting, I believe that >> the intent of the gap kept in the superscript lowercase range, >> is to maintain a limitation to the performance of plain text. >> I don't see very

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 8 Oct 2016, at 12:03, Julian Bradfield wrote: > > I happen to think the whole math alphabet thing was a dumb > mistake. They are useful in mathematics, but other sciences may not use them. > But even if it isn't - and incidentally in some communities > there is

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 2016-10-07, Oren Watson wrote: > I scarcely think that a use case was submitted for every one of the > blackboard bold etc letters in the mathematical set; merely the use of > blackboard bold for a general purpose of denoting sets such as the > naturals, reals, complex

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Hmm... "filling in Latin alphabet encoding gaps without clear use cases" is exactly what was done for the blackboard bold letters. I scarcely think that a use case was submitted for every one of the blackboard bold etc letters in the mathematical set; merely the use of blackboard bold for a

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10/7/2016 11:25 AM, Oren Watson wrote: Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode for new linguistic theories and

RE: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Oren Watson wrote: > Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all > remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in > the SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of > unicode for new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 7 Oct 2016, at 19:25, Oren Watson wrote: > > Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all > remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the > SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode

Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode for new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the mathematical characters?

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Marcel Schneider wrote: > According to my hypothesis and while waiting, I believe that > the intent of the gap kept in the superscript lowercase range, > is to maintain a limitation to the performance of plain text. > I don't see very well how to apply Hanlon's razor here, because > there seems

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Philippe Verdy : > > But if semantic is your issue, we could insert an invisible Unicode mark of > abbreviation (notably the invisible abbreviation dot, which may be rendered > as a dot in some contexts where distinctions by styles cannot be used, or > could be rendered by

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-06 21:48 GMT+02:00 Christoph Päper : > > For ordinal numbers, it’s relatively simple to code language-dependent > glyph substitution in Opentype which would not require any additional > effort from the author, “3ème” would just work, “3e” → “3ᵉ” would require

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:35:52 +, Martin Mueller wrote: […] > 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. Indeed

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:20:22 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > In a sense, superscript code points make this easier: the rendering can > simply pick up the corresponding glyph for the font – if it has one (a > big “if”). But this is not a good argument in favor of adding such > points en masse. It

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Jukka K. Korpela : > > … 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 … For ordinal numbers, it’s relatively simple to code language-dependent glyph

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-06 21:02 GMT+02:00 Doug Ewell : > >> 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 does not render very well, the accent is not correctly

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

>> 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 does not render very well, the accent is not correctly positioned > vertically (far too high) above the superscript e and

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

6.10.2016, 19:27, Ken Whistler wrote: Their functions have been completely overtaken by markup conventions such as ... and ..., which *are* widely supported already, even in most email clients, ri^ght out of the b_ox . They are widely supported, but very widely in a typographically inferior

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

It does not render very well, the accent is not correctly positioned vertically (far too high) above the superscript e and colliding with the previous line of text at normal line-height, because fonts do not support this pair with proper positioning. The combination is just rendered in some "best

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:27:13 -0700, Ken Whistler wrote: […] > Their functions have been completely overtaken by markup conventions > such as ... and ..., which *are* widely supported > already, even in most email clients, ri^ght out of the b_ox . > > And I suspect that Yucca's statement "so it

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10/6/2016 9:32 AM, Oren Watson wrote: I meant, petition say the devs of Konsole, iTerm, xterm etc, and other programs which deal purely in plain text to support 8b and 8c characters for formatting. Markup doesn't exist everywhere. Fair enough. But most actual terminals didn't support

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:55:32 +0200, Frédéric Grosshans wrote: […] >> 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

Fwd: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

I meant, petition say the devs of Konsole, iTerm, xterm etc, and other programs which deal purely in plain text to support 8b and 8c characters for formatting. Markup doesn't exist everywhere. On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Ken Whistler wrote: > > > On 10/6/2016 9:04 AM,

Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10/6/2016 9:04 AM, Oren Watson wrote: 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 purpose? Because U+008C and U+008B are relics from the days when control codes were used in

Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

-- Forwarded message -- From: Oren Watson <oren.wat...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:03 PM Subject: Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ? To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fi> If this is a real need, why not petition more sof

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

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 curious whether they could be managed without accented superscripts. Anyway, combining diacritics should be placeable on

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

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 curious whether they could be managed without accented superscripts. Anyway, combining diacritics should be placeable on superscripts as well. Like «3ᵉ̀ᵐᵉ» ? It already works

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-06 9:21 GMT+02:00 Marcel Schneider : > > Almost nobody use the preencoded superscript letters for this (notably > not > > for "1er", or its recommended feminine form "1re", > > still frequently written "1ère") > > They donʼt because these are not on the keyboard.

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:02 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote: […] > > I agree, French allows abbreviating many words by appending the last new > letters in superscripts. 3e is recommended but > 3ème > is still very frequent. As well you'll see abbreviations using é > (a frequent termination for past

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: 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

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

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

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 basic formulas for select compounds, but not all. Given that these basic

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:47:09 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote: > On 10/3/2016 11:47 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Basic chemical formulas like H₂SO₄ or [ClO₂]⁺ can be written in > > plain Unicode text. At some point the line between basic and non-basic > > has to be drawn, just as with arbitrarily

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Asmus Freytag (c) wrote: > As a result, you can write basic formulas for select compounds, but > not all. Given that these basic formulae don't need full 2-D layout, > this still seems like an arbitrary restriction. Adding a carefully selected group of styled characters to the original,

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 10/3/2016 11:47 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: Basic chemical formulas like H₂SO₄ or [ClO₂]⁺ can be written in plain Unicode text. At some point the line between basic and non-basic has to be drawn, just as with arbitrarily stacked superscripts in math, and some sort of

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Steve Swales wrote: > > > On Oct 3, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > > > > a.lukyanov wrote: > > > >> I think that the right thing to do would be to create several new > >> control/formatting characters, like this: > >> >

RE: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Steve Swales wrote: >> I happen to think this would be exactly the wrong thing to do, >> completely contrary to the principles of plain text that Unicode was >> founded upon. But you never know what might gain traction, so stay >> tuned. > > I guess I don’t see how it is fundamentally different

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 03/10/16 18:59, Steve Swales wrote: On Oct 3, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: a.lukyanov wrote: I think that the right thing to do would be to create several new control/formatting characters, like this: "previous character is superscript" "previous character is

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-03 14:51 GMT-03:00 Jukka K. Korpela : > They are not control or formatting characters. They are markup used at > higher protocol levels – in different markup systems > > That's exactly the point, yes.

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > > a.lukyanov wrote: > >> I think that the right thing to do would be to create several new >> control/formatting characters, like this: >> >> "previous character is superscript" >> "previous character is subscript" >>

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

3.10.2016, 20:40, Leonardo Boiko wrote: Besides, there are already control/formatting characters for such purposes – several ones, even. They look like this: , ^{}, \textsuperscript{}, \*{ \*} … They are not control or formatting characters. They are markup used at higher protocol levels –

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Besides, there are already control/formatting characters for such purposes – several ones, even. They look like this: , ^{}, \textsuperscript{}, \*{ \*} … What's more, these powerful control/formatting characters allow one to apply not only super/subscript and blackletter, but many more features

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

a.lukyanov wrote: > I think that the right thing to do would be to create several new > control/formatting characters, like this: > > "previous character is superscript" > "previous character is subscript" > "previous character is small caps (for use in phonetic transcription > only)" > "previous

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 03:00:50PM +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > 1.10.2016, 11:29, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:31:58PM +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > [...] > >> What I was pointing at was that when using > > > rich text or markup, it is complicated or impossible to

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-10-01 15:48 GMT+02:00 lorieul : > > The drawback of that solution is lack of readability in the sources. I > would like to have a formatting in the spirit of markdown i.e. a > formating that is easy to read both in the sources and after html- or > pdf- or

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

> On 1 Oct 2016, at 15:48, lorieul wrote: > Indeed Latex formulas are often not easy to > decypher… One can improve readability by using more Unicode characters [1] and the unicode-math package [2], or switching to ConTeXt ,

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

I disagree. Fonts normally contain metrics for proper positioning of the superscript and subscript baselines and relative heights. They "may" provide additional features to overide the glyphs or relative positioning if this is needded for the coherence with the preencoded superscripts/superscripts

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Re, On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 11:57 +0200, Gael Lorieul wrote: > I wonder why only a subset of the alphabet is available as subscript > and/or superscript ? On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 17:08 +0200, "Jörg Knappen" wrote: > They were found in older charactersets and Unicode > provides so-called "round-trip

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

1.10.2016, 11:29, Khaled Hosny wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:31:58PM +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: [...] >> 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

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

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

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

I think that the right thing to do would be to create several new control/formatting characters, like this: "previous character is superscript" "previous character is subscript" "previous character is small caps (for use in phonetic transcription only)" "previous character is mathematical

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 9/30/2016 11:26 AM, Michael Everson wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 08:07, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Apart from specialized cases, the recommended approach is to use higher protocols (such as formatting or markup). So instead of

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

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). The correct thing here is that the markup and the font-rendering systems *should* automatically work together to

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

I’m with Michael on this. The obvious use case is text messaging, which has no higher protocols to leverage. -steve > On Sep 30, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Michael Everson wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 08:07, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >> Apart from

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

On 30 Sep 2016, at 08:07, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Apart from specialized cases, the recommended approach is to use higher > protocols (such as formatting or markup). So instead of trying to find > superscript letters for “end”, you should consider using rich text or a >

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Newly proposed OpenType Variable Fonts may go a long way to rectifying those typographic pitfalls. The technology is some ways off, but is promising, as explained in a recent blog post by John Hudson:

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-09-30 18:54 GMT+02:00 Jukka K. Korpela : > 30.9.2016, 19:36, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > 2016-09-30 17:54 GMT+02:00 Jukka K. Korpela > >: >> >> Using HTML, for example, the way to achieve that at present would be >> to

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-09-30 18:31 GMT+02:00 Jukka K. Korpela : > 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

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

30.9.2016, 19:36, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2016-09-30 17:54 GMT+02:00 Jukka K. Korpela >: Using HTML, for example, the way to achieve that at present would be to use markup like ... (to avoid the problems caused by the default formatting

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

2016-09-30 17:54 GMT+02:00 Jukka K. Korpela : > Using HTML, for example, the way to achieve that at present would be to > use markup like ... (to avoid the problems caused > by the default formatting of and ) and to use a CSS style sheet > that sets font-family suitably and

  1   2   >