Re: Fwd: Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 05:11:01 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Fwd: Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705"

    "Michael Everson" wrote at 2004-02-18 02:39:
    > Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    > > Alternatively, let's leave all subscripting to markup.
    > It is too late for that, Ken. Sorry. Indo-Europeanists have
    > requirements just as real as Uralicists did. And having some
    > subscripts available but not the rest isn't acceptable. Why would it
    > be?

    Why couldn't there exist a combining subscript modifier, added after a base
    character, to make it look like a subscript, and that could be given a maximum
    combining class 255?
    This would greatly limit the abuse of this character to write a whole sequence
    into subscripts when it should be coded more simply with markup in rich-text

    So for example to encode the proposed "subscript lowercase x", we would code

    The combining modifier would normally create a conjunct or a ligature with its
    base grapheme cluster to modify it in order to make it look like a subscript;
    this is unlike the simple combining diacritics that MAY be simply overwriting
    the base character, but most often need to create a special ligature to handle a
    correct placement, including the already existing possibility to alter/resize
    the base character in order to place the diacritic above or under it. So that's
    something which can be handled in fonts.

    If we need a representative glyph for the lowerscript modifier, it could be a
    smaller dotted circle...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 06:13:23 EST