Hi Frédéric, Theoretically, relative font sizes can be adjusted by means of markup, but my understanding is that <small>z</small><big><U+1DE4></big> (where "small" and "big" represent the necessary font size corrections to achieve the impression of equality) would be illegal as a character stream; ᷤ could work, though:
critisi<font size="-2">z</font><font size="+2">ᷤ</font>e Close enough. The renderer would need a heuristic to deal with base letters and combining letters having different font sizes. Thanks, Leo On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Frédéric Grosshans < [email protected]> wrote: > Le 01/10/2013 12:20, Frédéric Grosshans a écrit : > >> Le 01/10/2013 02:51, Leo Broukhis a écrit : >> >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Attached is a part of page 36 of Henry Alford's */The Queen's English: a >>> manual of idiom and usage/ (1888)* [http://archive.org/details/** >>> queensenglishman00alfo<http://archive.org/details/queensenglishman00alfo> >>> ] >>> >>> Is the way to indicate alternative s/z spellings used there plain text >>> (arguably, if it can be done with a typewriter, it is plain text) or rich >>> text (ignoring the font size of letters s and z)? >>> >> U+xxxx LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER Z U+1DE4 COMBINING LATIN SMALL >> LETTER S, but LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER Z doesn't exist. >> Interestingly, the opposite combination, U+209B LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL >> LETTER S U+1DE6 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER Z exists. U+007A : LATIN >> SMALL LETTER Z >> >> U+1DE4 : COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER S >> >> 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. > > It was proposed among others in 2011 in the proposal n4068/L2 11-208 > http://www.unicode.org/L2/**L2011/11208-n4068.pdf<http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11208-n4068.pdf>which > was asking for all missing subscript, superscript and small capital > latin letters. The German NB supported this proposal in L2/11-416 > http://www.unicode.org/L2/**L2011/11416-request-on-n4068.**pdf<http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11416-request-on-n4068.pdf>and > n4085 > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/**wg2/docs/n4085.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4085.pdf>. > It was discussed in the january 2012 meeting (see section 9.1, p29 of > http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/**wg2/docs/n4253.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4253.pdf>) > and rejected because of a lack of evidence. > > On the other hand, similar stacked characters where proposed with > Theutonista characters (fig. 1,2, 15, 19, 35, 53, ...) of > std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/**docs/n4081.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4081.pdf>) > . Some really looked like a subscript letter with a combining letter, but > the discussion in > http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/**wg2/docs/n4106.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4106.pdf>shows > that they could be analyzᷤed as normal letter + combining letter. > However, in your case, the whole point of the orthography is to put z and s > an equal footing, and I don't think "zᷤ = U+007A : LATIN SMALL LETTER > ZU+1DE4 : COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER S" would be a correct > representation. > > Frédéric > > > >
