"Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:
This isn't about them not looking *exactly* the same, it's about these existing modifiers being inconsistent with each other in visibly noticable ways. Nor are these characters mere styling that should require rich-text (including changing fonts) to represent. Consider the possibility that someone might wish to use Tonal units among whatever existing use of these inconsistently-superscripted characters.
If you are claiming that the existing modifier-letter characters are completely unsuited to the purpose because of irreconcilable glyph differences, make some screen shots and upload them to a Web site and post the URL here. (Do not send the images directly to the list.) Then those of us who have been looking at glyphs and thinking about this unification/disunification thing for 10 or 15 years can see what we think.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
