On Monday, July 26, 2010 02:16:23 am Kent Karlsson wrote: > There are more superscripted letters than i and n that are encoded; among > them are: > > 1D47;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL B;Lm;0;L;<super> 0062 > 1D50;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL M;Lm;0;L;<super> 006D > 02E2;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL S;Lm;0;L;<super> 0073 > 1D57;MODIFIER LETTER SMALL T;Lm;0;L;<super> 0074
Not a single font on my system renders these characters in a way that looks like the "exponentized" letters for Tonal unit divisions/multiplications. In virtually all cases, the height of the small forms are half the height they should be. Furthermore, almost none of them render them all at the same base- level-- in particular, the base level of M.L.S. S tends to be significantly higher than all the rest. While these might be considered "font issues", I can only assume from the consistency in them that it these appearances are intentionally due to some existing use of the characters, and adjusting them to be of uniform base/height appropriate for Tonal would "ruin" that usage. Given this scenario, is it proper to encode perhaps one set of TONAL MODIFIER LETTER SMALL _ suitable for use, are we stuck using these mismatching existing encodings, or perhaps someone has better advice for handling the conflicting uses? Thanks, Luke
