On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:46:30 +0100 Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote:
> Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight > typographic difference between 𝑥²₀ and 𝑥₀² by letting the sub- or > superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the > one that comes before. For example, 𝑥₀² might mean the square of 𝑥₀, and 𝑥²₀ > the component 0 of 𝑥², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such things > are left for the reader to interpret. Isn't that poor nomenclature, being ambiguous? I would explicitly write (𝑥₀)² or (𝑥²)₀ in such cases, and I have also seen 𝑥²|₀ used for example, or other non-ambiguous shorthands. Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
