Denis Moyogo Jacquerye wrote: >> Are these more examples that exist in only one or two sources, where >> the main purpose of encoding them, or creating or enhancing the >> combining mechanism, would be to talk about the sources? Or are they >> in actual productive use? > > The author states he has found several exemples using this to > abbriviate words, and that it is also used in Latin.
OK, that's helpful. Is the notational mechanism used in these examples inherently open-ended, such that arbitrary combinations of letters and superscripted letters are likely to be necessary, and not just to talk about the notational mechanism itself? I'm hearing a lot about how best to enhance the Unicode combining mechanism to allow these constructions, and support text operations like sorting and orthographic checking, and not much about whether there is a genuine need to do any of this in plain text. Do people really apply text processes like these to epigraphic samples? > It would be useful to know the extent of this use. Truly. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
