What typically happens with the correct use of fraction slash on a collaborative website like Wikipedia, is that the superscripts and subscripts are restored, Iʼve just found while trying to share the section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slash_(punctuation)&diff=prev&oldid=759542943 | | (→Fractions: Removed browser-specific information, restored hack that works on most browsers) | | […] | | […] (e.g., display of {{not a typo|11⁄12}} as <span style="font-family: Cambria;">11⁄12</span>),<ref>{{citation |title=The Unicode Standard, […] Restored by somebody to: | | […] (e.g., display of {{not a typo|11⁄12}} as {{not a typo|¹¹⁄₁₂}}),{{citation |title=The Unicode Standard, […] | Thus, OK for the “hack.” Whether that hack is undisciplined or not, becomes now a better question. In my opinion, the lack of dicipline is rather found in editors of persistently non-conformant software. Though I wouldnʼt bother them, if only Unicode could accept that the users who need to work with the software, need to work around it. “Couldnʼt Unicode follow Microsoft?” And follow their users, please. Consequently, one ought to remember what a keyboard layout really is: a facility to help people input the characters they need and use. Therefore, complete ones should support the input of fractions composed with super/sub scripts and U+2044, and as of Unicode, the Consortium should allow people to write fractions this way around if they cannot afford to write them in the standard way. Mentioning this in the relevant section of the Standard would avoid tagging these keyboard layout developers as hackers. (Iʼm not a hacker, nor am I a programmer.) Extrapolating from this to ordinal indicators, one could consider that all the reasons opposed so far are based only on the lack of updated fonts and on the will of the UTC. This is why I cannot consider them as good reasons without some additional arguments. • Fonts: The *true* FRACTION SLASH U+2044 turns out to be even less common than the superscript small letters, and we can hope that when facing the real use, font-vendors will agree to update the typefaces. • Formatting: This has ended up as inappropriate whenever no fine-tuning (CSS) can be performed, so that the superscript small letters are finally less bad, and even more appropriate in many circumstances. • Unicode design principles: They are biased. Cf. the naming policy of the superscript small letters, declared as 'MODIFIER LETTER SMALL .', while all other instances show more straightforward identifiers and headings: @ Latin superscript modifier letters x (superscript latin small letter i - 2071) // (These conform to early standards) x (superscript latin small letter n - 207F) 02B0 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL H // (Should be: LATIN SUPERSCRIPT SMALL LETTER H) * aspiration # 0068 […] @ Latin subscript modifier letters 1D62 LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER I # 0069 […] @ Subscripts […] 2090 LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER A # 0061 2091 LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER E # 0065 […] Regards, Marcel
