> On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/3/2017 4:24 PM, Marcel Schneider wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:31:42 +0100, Christoph Päper wrote: >> >>>> Among the possibilities, you include Unicode subscripts. >>> Just for the sake of completeness. >> This tends to conclude that preformatted subscripts are really an option >> here. > > Not so. You yourself quote this statement: > > | Superscript modifier letters are intended for cases where the letters carry > | a specific meaning, as in phonetic transcription systems, and are not > | a substitute for generic styling mechanisms for superscripting of text, > | as for footnotes, mathematical and chemical expressions, and the like. > > It is clear that the uses that you advocate go against this intent. > > Therefore, your conclusion that this is "an option" is nothing more than a > very personal > opinion on your part (and one that many people here would consider misguided > if > presented as general recommendation). > > A./
As long as this is being discussed, what about the historic practice of using M‘ (nowadays often seen as M’ instead) in Scottish names—e.g., M‘Donald—as a typographic substitute for M(superscript c)? -- John W Kennedy Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of incompetence and criminality.
