Re: Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?

From: Ken Whistler <>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:53:16 -0700

On 10/7/2016 11:25 AM, Oren Watson wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all
> remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in
> the SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of
> unicode for new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the
> mathematical characters?

I don't see that the use of Unicode characters for new linguistic
theories and ideas is arbitrarily constrained as it stands. So no, I
don't think it make sense to submit such a proposal on spec. I don't
understand peoples' fascination with multiplying the encoding of the
Latin alphabet A-Z over and over and over again. Modifier letters are
different from the mathematical styled alphabets -- modifier letters
include many letters and symbols beyond A-Z, and there isn't any clear
marginal benefit in trying to "complete" their set somehow by filling in
Latin alphabet encoding gaps without clear use cases.

Received on Fri Oct 07 2016 - 13:54:01 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Oct 07 2016 - 13:54:01 CDT