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

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 07:33:29 EST

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

    At 04:16 -0800 2004-02-18, Peter Kirk wrote:

    >If I find references (e.g. the ones Ken and I have already given)
    >with the rest of the Latin alphabet and other characters used as
    >subscripts in linguistic works, would you add these to your proposal
    >as well?

    This proposal is for Indo-Europeanist characters. There have been
    many proposals for superscript and subscript characters.

    >If "yes", you are accepting that "the rest" is open-ended.

    Your point?

    >If "no", what makes your subscripts different from and more
    >encodable than my subscripts?

    Nothing? We showed evidence of use. Can you do the same?

    >Ernest has given a reasonable criterion, but one which rules out x
    >and /. Do you have an alternative criterion?

    I don't think "standaloneness" is much of a criterion. If
    Indo-Europeanists are representing subscript (e/o) and the
    parentheses are encoded, and the e and o can be encoded, why on earth
    should the / not be encoded?

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 08:11:45 EST