Re: sub and superscripts

From: Gregg Reynolds (
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 16:31:55 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: sub and superscripts"

    Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
    > Gregg Reynolds wrote:
    >> Good call; I had only been thinking of single-level subscripting (i.e.
    >> string indexing, not multi-dimensional arrays). Nonetheless, encoding
    >> infinite characters is not the only way to solve this. I'm not sure
    >> what the best solution would be, but I would observe that Unicode is
    >> capable of accomodating e.g. bidi-override marks and various similar
    >> "characters"; so why not a <subscript> and <popsubscript> mark, for
    >> example.
    > We could call them "[" and "]", for consistency with existing practice.
    > This is a typesetting issue, not a plaintext one.
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. "[" and "]" have well-defined
    plaintext semantics. If we overlay "subscript" on those semantics, then
    we no longer have plaintext. Nor do we have markup; we have a
    redefinition of the codepoints. Also I don't understand the distinction
    between "typesetting issue" and "plaintext issue". Plaintext must be


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 16:32:44 CDT