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 universal truth of langu

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 printed. The obvious TeX feel

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 transcriptions, cf., https

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 need to do everything in plain text. Long ago, I s

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., >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_International_Phonetic

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 "proprietary" means. To quote the OED (which, by

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 >>> provide as detailed a description as a human mind can manage of >>> sounds. It

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. > > That's an interesting use of "proprietary" you hav

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 whether you're describing differences between >>

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 need to do everything in plain text. Long ago, I

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 Alician interests, Humpty

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 Spanish with "¡" in the

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 major distinctions easily acce

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 alveolar click with percussive flap hasn't made it into the > >> > standard IPA, but in ExtI

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 transcriptions [1], with a requirement to distinguish phonemes within e

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 editor to do semi-wysiwyg

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 we wish > to encode may be lost. We have no nee

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 be lost. Michael Recte:

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. ... >> IPA can be used pretty much as b

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 beyond the wit of Unicode. > >

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 in ExtIPA it's [ǃ¡] (preferably kerned together). >> >> There is ‼

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 example, one parti

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 EXCLAMATION MARK U+203C which perhaps might be used.

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 transcribed

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 requirement to distinguish phonemes within each given > >> languag

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 alveolar click with percussive

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 example, the English /l/ is thicker than the Swe

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 symbol, as there is no p

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 modifier letter >> revers

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 n

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 or was a convention of usin

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 for > new linguistic theo

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 to

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 using superscripts fo

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 > some extra care to avoid fal

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 i

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 substitution in Opent

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 positioned > > verti

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 coll

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 e

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 wou

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 pa

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 t

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 superscri

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. Trust me, I wouldnʼt use >

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 par

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 v

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 alpha.

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 that help for the Fr

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 help

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 not

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 find

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 basi

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 formula

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 stacked

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, carefully

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 f

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: > >> > >> "previous character is superscri

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 fr

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 subscript" "previous

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" >> "previous character is sm

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 – i

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 ha

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 whatever-generation. Indeed Latex for

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 , which has builtin support. 1. http:/

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 c

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 o

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 itali

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 blackl

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 trying to find superscri

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 specialized cases, the recommended approach is to u

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 > markup language so th

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: https://medium.com/@tiro/https-medium-com-tiro-introducing-opentype-variable-fonts-12ba6cd2369#.

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 use markup like ... (to avoid the >>

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 faces). >> > > There i

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 mailto:jkorp...@cs.tut.fi>>: 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 u

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 uses OpenType font fea

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

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 wh

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

30.9.2016, 18:19, Philippe Verdy wrote: Note also that many tools generating documentation from source code allow you to insert HTML comments, so you could as well use , Yes, but there’s a serious typographic pitfall with this, as well as with using e.g. subscript or superscript formatting in

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

Your problem here is that "start" and "end" are not symbols/variables but actual English words. Why would this usage be restricted only to English ? The same formula would need to be really translated in various languages and scripts, needing then mapping all letters in Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, but

Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

30.9.2016, 12:57, Gael Lorieul wrote: I wonder why only a subset of the alphabet is available as subscript and/or superscript ? This is explained in section 22.4 of the standard: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode9.0.0/ch22.pdf#page=25 To put it briefly, in my interpretation, subscript a