> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> Of Michael Everson
> Why you should object to the subscript letter is beyond me. And it
> seems to me that you are objecting more to some possible subscript
> tilde than to the attested subscript solidus, which is used in our
> examples along with subscript parentheses.
It's a matter of knowing where the boundary is. If we are to consider encoding the subscript solidus, we must do some triage up front:
(following Ernest's scheme of using [] to indicate subscripts)
- What is the potential that later on someone will start using h[a~e], or perhaps h[a→e]! (say, to indicate an a-coloured laryngeal that in a certain context has become e-coloured)?
- If such usage should arise, how would our decision to encode [/] affect how we decide about [~] or [→]?
The point is, we don't (or, at least, shouldn't) just encode things because we saw them being used. We should establish principles (however formally or informally stated) that we use to guide our decisions. *That* is why Ken cares about a possible subscript tilde.
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
