A superscript glyph would in my view normally be larger than a glyph for
a combining superscript character. The reason is that the former just
has to appear raised and smaller, while the latter has to fit somehow in
the space above x-height.
The typeset example shows kerning of true superscript and subscript
glyphs, not a combination in the sense we understand combining
characters. This can be seen in the original, where the upper half of
the composite shape would not fit above x-height.
Since this is not a "standard" notation, but an innovative, yet
single-use device, it does not merit a standardized plain text
representation - that is not unless we have many other examples of
similar overlays of letter pairs.
A./
On 10/1/2013 10:11 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 17:17:20 +0200
> Frédéric Grosshans <frederic.grosshans_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The text you scanned would then be in plain text (with s and z
>> inverted)
>
>> 49. How are we to decide between s and z in such words as
>> anatemathiₛᷦe cauteriₛᷦe, criticiₛᷦe, deodoriₛᷦe, dogmatiₛᷦe,
>> fraterniₛᷦe and the rest ? Many of these are derived from Greek
>
>> Since that is possible with current unicode while the original
>> orthography of Henry Alford's 1888 book is not, I think this an
>> argument to encode LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN Z.
> Why should the subscript and combining superscript letters be the
> 'same' size?
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 01 2013 - 12:35:26 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 01 2013 - 12:35:26 CDT