Re: COMBINING OVER MARK?

[Asmus Freytag]

A superscript glyph would in my view normally be larger than a glyph for a combining superscript character. The reason is that the former just has to appear raised and smaller, while the latter has to fit somehow in the space above x-height. The typeset example shows kerning of true superscript and subscript glyphs, not a combination in the sense we understand combining characters. This can be seen in the original, where the upper half of the composite shape would not fit above x-height. Since this is not a "standard" notation, but an innovative, yet single-use device, it does not merit a standardized plain text representation - that is not unless we have many other examples of similar overlays of letter pairs. A./ On 10/1/2013 10:11 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 17:17:20 +0200 Frédéric Grosshans <frederic.grossh...@gmail.com> wrote: The text you scanned would then be in plain text (with s and z inverted) 49. How are we to decide between s and z in such words as anatemathiₛᷦe cauteriₛᷦe, criticiₛᷦe, deodoriₛᷦe, dogmatiₛᷦe, fraterniₛᷦe and the rest ? Many of these are derived from Greek Since that is possible with current unicode while the original orthography of Henry Alford's 1888 book is not, I think this an argument to encode LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN Z. Why should the subscript and combining superscript letters be the 'same' size? Richard.