On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +0000 Alastair Houghton <alast...@alastairs-place.net> wrote:
> Does anyone besides Marcel have any input on that idea? Is it worth > writing a proposal to add SUPERSCRIPT and SUBSCRIPT? To give some > examples: > > S^{té} > > U+0053 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S > U+0074 LATIN SMALL LETTER T > U+???? SUPERSCRIPT > U+0065 LATIN SMALL LETTER E > U+???? SUPERSCRIPT > U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT > > i_{j} > > U+0069 LATIN SMALL LETTER I > U+0070 LATIN SMALL LETTER J > U+???? SUBSCRIPT > > Perhaps the code points U+209E and U+209F could be used for SUBSCRIPT > and SUPERSCRIPT respectively? I would suggest using a pair of variation selectors instead. It's no messier than ideographic compatibility characters, and I think it is actually less messy. However, I would further suggest creating the variation sequences only when the corresponding superscript or subscript form does not exist. Richard.