Re: CSUR Tonal

From: Luke-Jr (luke@dashjr.org)
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
    uses?

    Thanks,

    Luke



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