On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:00:52 +0100 (CET) Marcel Schneider <[email protected]> wrote:
> The phenomenon isnʼt actually limited to plain text environments. See: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13878772/how-to-display-classic-fractions-in-css-javascript > | You can also use the straight unicode approach to render ¹⁹⁄₄₅: > | > | ¹⁹⁄₄₅ > | > | (See the wikipedia article.) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts If you follow the link from that page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subscript_and_superscript , you will notice an immediate issue with the position of the subscripts. This is why the use of explicitly coded subscript and superscript digits for vulgar fractions is not recommended. Rather, one needs to hope that the font one is using supports U+2044 FRACTION SLASH. As not all fonts support all superscript and subscript digits, text using them may render badly, whereas U+2044 itself will usually be rendered at least tolerably even if the glyph comes from a different font to the digits. The truly straight Unicode approach in HTML is to use 19⁄45. Just entering those 5 characters into a text entry box in Firefox gave me a properly formatted vulgar fraction. That is how vulgar fractions are supposed to work. Unfortunately, one may need to avoid 'exciting new fonts' in favour of those with a large, working repertoire. Richard.
