Re: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

From: Marcel Schneider <>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 20:14:13 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:27:13 -0700, Ken Whistler wrote:

> Their functions have been completely overtaken by markup conventions
> such as <sub>...</sub> and <sup>...</sup>, which *are* widely supported
> already, even in most email clients, ri^ght out of the b_ox .
> And I suspect that Yucca's statement "so it would usually be best to
> give up the superscripting idea here" is intended to mean give up on
> asking for a separately encoded superscript character for each Latin
> letter, including accented ones (or applying accents to separately
> encoded superscript letters). Because, after all, this stuff already
> just works: «3^ème » (and not «3ᵉ̀ᵐᵉ», by the way!).

High level formatting in high-end mail clients is of little use
when the target environment is plain text.
Itʼs still unambiguous, though.

As of superscript ‘è’, I had asked for it as soon as 2014, and I fully
understood that Unicode no longer encourages proposals of any *new*
precomposed characters. This was before I learned that ‘3ème’ is not
good French. These long ordinal indicators are deprecated.

Received on Thu Oct 06 2016 - 13:14:30 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Oct 06 2016 - 13:14:30 CDT