From: Gregg Reynolds (unicode@arabink.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 16:31:55 CDT
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
typeset.
-g
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 16:32:44 CDT