Re: COMBINING OVER MARK?

Hi Frédéric,

Theoretically, relative font sizes can be adjusted by means of markup, but
my understanding is that
<small>z</small><big><U+1DE4></big>
(where "small" and "big" represent the necessary font size corrections to
achieve the impression of equality) would be illegal as a character stream;
 &#x1DE4; could work, though:

critisi<font size="-2">z</font><font size="+2">&#x1DE4;</font>e

Close enough. The renderer would need a heuristic to deal with base letters
and combining letters having different font sizes.

Thanks,
Leo

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Frédéric Grosshans <
frederic.grosshans_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 01/10/2013 12:20, Frédéric Grosshans a écrit :
>
>> Le 01/10/2013 02:51, Leo Broukhis a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Attached is a part of page 36 of Henry Alford's */The Queen's English: a
>>> manual of idiom and usage/ (1888)* [http://archive.org/details/**
>>> queensenglishman00alfo<http://archive.org/details/queensenglishman00alfo>
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Is the way to indicate alternative s/z spellings used there plain text
>>> (arguably, if it can be done with a typewriter, it is plain text) or rich
>>> text (ignoring the font size of letters s and z)?
>>>
>> U+xxxx LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER Z U+1DE4 COMBINING LATIN SMALL
>> LETTER S, but LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER Z doesn't exist.
>> Interestingly, the opposite combination, U+209B LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL
>> LETTER S ‍ U+1DE6 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER Z exists. U+007A : LATIN
>> SMALL LETTER Z
>>
>> U+1DE4 : COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER S
>>
>> 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.
>
> It was proposed among others in 2011 in the proposal n4068/L2 11-208
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/**L2011/11208-n4068.pdf<http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11208-n4068.pdf>which was asking for all missing subscript, superscript and small capital
> latin letters. The German NB supported this proposal in L2/11-416
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/**L2011/11416-request-on-n4068.**pdf<http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11416-request-on-n4068.pdf>and n4085
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/**wg2/docs/n4085.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4085.pdf>. It was discussed in the january 2012 meeting (see section 9.1, p29 of
> http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/**wg2/docs/n4253.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4253.pdf>) and rejected because of a lack of evidence.
>
> On the other hand, similar stacked characters where proposed with
> Theutonista characters (fig. 1,2, 15, 19, 35, 53, ...) of
> std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/**docs/n4081.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4081.pdf>)
> . Some really looked like a subscript letter with a combining letter, but
> the discussion in http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/**wg2/docs/n4106.pdf<http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4106.pdf>shows that they could be analyzᷤed as normal letter + combining letter.
> However, in your case, the whole point of the orthography is to put z and s
> an equal footing, and I don't think "zᷤ = U+007A : LATIN SMALL LETTER
> ZU+1DE4 : COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER S" would be a correct
> representation.
>
> Frédéric
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 01 2013 - 12:50:50 CDT