Marcel Schneider wrote: >> I don't understand the relevance to vulgar fractions. > > Vulgar fractions represented using super- and subscript digits around > the FRACTION SLASH U+2044
Don't do that. The fact that someone, even a Microsoft MVP, posted an article about this glyph hack does not make it a good idea. It's kind of like making a grinning frog or caterpillar out of Telugu letters. > What I complain of as not mentioned in the Standard, is that U+2044 > can be used with superscript and subscript digits, rather than ASCII > digits. Almost any character(s) in Unicode "can be" used with almost any other. You can surround U+2044 with emoji if you like. That doesn't mean you should. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
