Re: math alphabets, WAS: Proprietary Card Decks

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Fri Apr 15 2011 - 11:18:51 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: Standard for symbols used on domestic appliances"

    Hans Aberg <haberg dash 1 at telia dot com> wrote:

    > You seem to assume that if one combines objects by means of subscripts and superscripts that results in a new character.

    Not because of combining, but because of positioning. I'm arguing
    against what I believe to be your suggestion, that adding more subscript
    and superscript characters would improve Unicode's handling of
    mathematics. Four different sequences (super-super, super-sub,
    sub-super, sub-sub) would require four different sets of second-level

    Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:

    > Has either one of you read UTN#28?

    I've breezed through Sections 1 and 2, as well as 3.12, where subscript
    and superscript are covered. I can't say I've studied it thoroughly,
    though I should have before getting into this.

    I'm fine with the idea of writing something like a^b^c^(d·√2) and
    having one piece of software that can read that and render it
    beautifully, and another piece of software that can read it and
    interpret it mathematically. Where I disagree is with the premise that
    this is a stopgap measure until Unicode "really" solves the problem by
    adding more characters.

    Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | | @DougEwell ­

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 15 2011 - 11:24:48 CDT