From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Apr 12 2010 - 12:58:20 CDT
Petr Tomasekk asked:
> 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?
No. It would be an unnecessary duplication. U+1D43 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL A,
etc. are precisely what you need.
The reason why there isn't a MODIFIER LETTER SMALL N encoded
between U+1D50 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M and U+1D51 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL ENG
is because U+207F SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER N already was
encoded and could serve that function. Don't worry about the
name differences, which are a historical artifact of the sequence
in which characters came into the standard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 14 2010 - 03:13:47 CDT