From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2011 - 11:18:51 CDT
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 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 15 2011 - 11:24:48 CDT