From: David Starner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2008 - 06:32:16 CDT
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:24 AM, Ondrej Certik <email@example.com> wrote:
> E.g. the argument that one would then need to add Turkish and other
> languages is imho not valid, because as far as I know there is no
> sub/superscripts in Turkish in unicode.
Assuming that you can use combining characters on super/subscripts
(which you can in theory), there are as many missing characters from
English as there are for Turkish: 1 (in Turkish's case, Ä±).
> My argument is that
> either there should be no sup/superscripts, or they should be
They are consistent; the super/subscripts are the ones that are used
> Who will use the current "crippled" support
> for superscripts now? I think noone.
It's not crippled; it's just not designed to do what you want. Anyone
who wants to use the letters in IPA or a modern orthography will find
all the letters they need there, as designed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 06:34:54 CDT