> >4) Unify the masculine indicator with Unicode 3.2's U+2071
> "SUPERSCRIPT
> >LATIN SMALL LETTER I" and only propose the feminine indicator
> (tentatively:
> >*U+2072 "SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER E").
>
> Yes, I'd do that. In fact, I've been pondering the merits of
> proposing a number of additional superscripts of phonetic
> symbols for the reason described above.
> I just haven't had a chance to do anything on that yet. a
> superscript e would definitely be in that set [...].
I considered the possibility of merging the two proposals, but I concluded
that it would not be a good idea.
The semantics of the two chars would be really too far away:
- a phonetic symbol used in the context of IPA and other linguistic
notations
vs.
- an abbreviation sign used near digits in a single language
Even the character categories would not match. Look at the precedents:
- 02B0 (MODIFIER LETTER SMALL H): category Lm (modifier letter)
vs.
- 00AA (FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR): category Ll (lowercase letter)
It would also be hard to find a name that (a) is consistent with other
characters in the same group, and (b) reflects both usages:
- "MODIFIER LETTER SMALL E"
vs.
- "PLURAL FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR" or "SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL
LETTER E"
And there is the usual glyph problem: if in a certain font U+00AA is
underlined, also the new character should be. But if the same font includes
IPA, this underline would not be allowed. So either the font is a "smart
font" with features, or one of the two usage has to be sacrificed in favor
of the other.
_ Marco
