On 29/10/18 20:29, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> ObMagister: I agree that trying to reflect every decorative nuance of
> handwriting is not what plain text is all about.
Agreed.
> (I also disagree with
> those who insist that superscripted abbreviations are required for
> correct spelling in certain languages, and I expect to draw swift
> flamage for that stance.)
It all (no “flamage”, just trying to understand) depends on how we
set the level of requirements, and what is understood by “correct”.
There is even an official position arguing that representing an "œ"
with an "oe" string is correct, and that using the correct "œ" is
not required.
> The abbreviation in the postcard, rendered in
> plain text, is "Mr". Bringing U+02B3 or U+036C into the discussion
In English, “Mr” for “Mister” is correct, because English does not use
superscript here, according to my knowledge. Ordinal indicators are
considered different, and require superscript in correct representation.
Thus being trained on English, one cannot easily evaluate what is
correct and what is required for correctness in a neighbor locale.
> just
> fuels the recurring demands for every Latin letter (and eventually those
> in other scripts) to be duplicated in subscript and superscript, à la
> L2/18-206.
That is a generic request, unrelated to any locale, based only on a kind
of criticism of poor rendering systems. The “fake super-/subscripts” are
already fixed if only OpenType is supported and fonts are complete.
>
> Back into my hole now.
No worries. Stay tuned :-) Informed discussion brings advancement.
Best regards,
Marcel
Received on Mon Oct 29 2018 - 15:20:55 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 29 2018 - 15:20:55 CDT