From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
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.
A./
> 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
> jenkins@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 16 2009 - 23:22:49 CST