Re: Superscript asterisk

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Fri Jul 02 1999 - 18:43:15 EDT


Jonathan Coxhead scripsit:

> I saw this as an advantage, in fact. Font size is already present:
> PRESENTATION SUGGESTION SMALL/WIDE are there. The first is useful in
> text with lots of acronyms, for example.

"Small" doesn't mean small-font; it means "standard-sized character
in a fullwidth box", as opposed to "wide", which means a large
character in a fullwidth box".

>
> So does this mean that there will be separate characters encoding
> 'X' as italic, bold, bold italic, fraktur, script, double-struck? (Plus
> others I may not be aware of?) And then also bold versions of COMBINING
> DOT ABOVE, COMBINING DIAERESIS, etc? (These are normally used with bold
> 'X' to indicate velocity, acceleration, resp.)
>
> And then superscript and subscript versions of all these (and
> presumably supersuperscript, supersubscript, subsuperscript and
> subsubscript as well)? (Including combining marks?)
>
> And I'd guess there'd be a need for left- and right-half tilde and
> circumflex accents, because these can be used to bridge a character-
> pair together, and with no START GROUP character, the possibility of
> using

We already have double tilde, though not double circumflex, in both
unified (U+0360) and split (U+FE22,U+FE23) form.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT