On Sun, Oct 28 2018 at 15:19 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > Given the "squiggle" below letters are actually gien distinctive > semantics, I think it should be encoded a combining character (to be > written not after a "superscript" but after any normal base letter, > possibly with other combining characters, or CGJ if needed because of > the compatibility equivalence. That "squiggle" (which may look like > an underscore) would haver the effect of implicity making the base > letter superscript (smaller and elevated). It would have probably a > "combining below" class.
Seems to me an elegant solution. [...] On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 19:52 GMT, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Mr͇ / M=ͬ For me only the latter seems acceptable. Using COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER R is a natural idea, but I feel uneasy using just EQUALS SIGN as the base character. However in the lack of a better solution I can live with it :-) An alternative would be to use SMALL EQUALS SIGN, but looks like fonts supporting it are rather rare. > > Le dim. 28 oct. 2018 à 10:41, arno.schmitt via Unicode <[email protected]> > a écrit : [...] > Looks to me like U+2116 № NUMERO SIGN > which perhaps should not have encoded, > since we have both U+004E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER N and > U+00BA º MASCULINE ORDINAL INDICATOR I'm rather sure it is inherited from a character set used for the round-trip test. Best regards Janusz -- , Janusz S. Bien emeryt (emeritus) https://sites.google.com/view/jsbien
