Re: CSUR Tonal

From: Luke-Jr (
Date: Fri Jul 30 2010 - 12:43:13 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis ☕: "Re: UTS#10 (collation) : French backwards level 2, and word-breakers."

    On Monday, July 26, 2010 02:16:23 am Kent Karlsson wrote:
    > There are more superscripted letters than i and n that are encoded; among
    > them are:
    > 1D47;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL B;Lm;0;L;<super> 0062
    > 1D50;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M;Lm;0;L;<super> 006D
    > 02E2;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL S;Lm;0;L;<super> 0073
    > 1D57;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL T;Lm;0;L;<super> 0074

    Not a single font on my system renders these characters in a way that looks
    like the "exponentized" letters for Tonal unit divisions/multiplications. In
    virtually all cases, the height of the small forms are half the height they
    should be. Furthermore, almost none of them render them all at the same base-
    level-- in particular, the base level of M.L.S. S tends to be significantly
    higher than all the rest. While these might be considered "font issues", I can
    only assume from the consistency in them that it these appearances are
    intentionally due to some existing use of the characters, and adjusting them
    to be of uniform base/height appropriate for Tonal would "ruin" that usage.

    Given this scenario, is it proper to encode perhaps one set of TONAL MODIFIER
    LETTER SMALL _ suitable for use, are we stuck using these mismatching existing
    encodings, or perhaps someone has better advice for handling the conflicting



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 30 2010 - 12:45:40 CDT