MODIFIER LETTER or SUPERSCRIPT?

From: Petr Tomasek (tomasek@etf.cuni.cz)
Date: Mon Apr 12 2010 - 12:06:34 CDT

  • Next message: karl williamson: "Re: Do non-positional number systems present security issues?"

    Hello!

    I've been looking for unicode codepoints for the transcription of
    semitic languages. In Hebrew the ḥātef sings (U+05B1, U+05B2, U+05B3)
    are transcribed as small superscript (latin letters) e, a, o.

    Since here the letters bear a semantic meaning they should be encoded using some
    unicode codepoint and not throught some sort of markup.

    However there doesn't exist an unicode codepoint for "LATIN SUPERSCRIPT
    SMALL LETTER E", "LATIN SUPERSCRIPT SMALL LETTER A", etc (although subscripts
    do exist, see U+2090, U+2091, U+2092).

    There are however "MODIFIER LETTER SMALL A" (U+1D43), etc. codepoints.
    (See U+1D00..ff).

    So my question: wouldn't it be much cleaner to add more "LATIN SUPERSCRIPT"
    letters to unicode? Would a proposal had a chance to be accepted?

    Thank You!
    Petr Tomasek 

    -- 
Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>
Jabber: butrus@jabbim.cz
SIP: butrus@ekiga.net

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 12 2010 - 12:08:14 CDT