From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 12:14:40 EST
> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Everson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Date: 2/18/2004 7:36:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: 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?
But the examples shown are not enough to convince me that
Indo-Europeanists in general are using this notation instead
of two authors using similar but not the same notation of using
a subscript /. If it were a standard notation, I would have expected
to see consistent usage (or non-usage) of the parenthesis around
the subscript combination involving the solidus.
I'm not saying that sufficient support can't be shown. I'm saying that
the examples shown are not enough to convince me of the desirability
of encoding subscript x and subscript / as official Unicode characters
instead of as markup or as private use characters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 13:23:29 EST