From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 - 23:18:52 CST
On 11/16/2009 6:28 PM, John H. Jenkins wrote:
> The correct way to represent superscripted text is with a higher-level protocol. The existing superscript characters are present either because of their use in transcription systems or for round-trip compatibility with earlier standards. It is very unlikely that a superscript comma will ever be added to the standard.
While this is generally true for running text, there have been earlier,
informal requests for such characters for use with chemical formulae in
plain-text database fields. At the time, this included even a few Greek
characters common in organic chemistry, as needed for a regulatory
database for chemical compounds used in medications. Unfortunately, the
requestors never followed up with either a formal proposal or with
information about how they actually solved their problem. If a
compelling case can be made for a *plain text* requirement, then UTC
should evaluate that.
Until then, it can be assumed that rich-text representation of these
characters is sufficient.
If there exists a standard methodology for representing chemical
compounds in database fields, it would be nice to be able to document that.
> There's a FAQ on superscripts on the Unicode Web site, but the page seems to be down at the moment.
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Daniel Bonniot wrote:
>> Did I miss a correct way to represent this text? Or is there a chance
>> superscript comma could be added to a future version?
> John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 16 2009 - 23:22:49 CST