On 2018-10-31, Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?= via Unicode
<unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29 2018 at 12:20 -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
[ as did I in private mail ]
>> The abbreviation in the postcard, rendered in
>> plain text, is "Mr".
>
> The relevant fragment of the postcard in a loose translation is
>
> Use the following address: <Abbreviation1> <Abbreviation2> <name>...
> <Abbreviation1> is the abbreviation of magister.
>
> I don't think your rendering
>
> Mr is the abbreviation of magister.
>
> has the same meaning.
I do, for the reasons stated by many.
If the topic were a study of the ways in which people indicate
abbreviations by typographic or manuscript styling, then it would be
important to know the exact form of the marks; but that is not plain
text. One cannot expect to discuss detailed technical questions using only
plain text, other than by using language to describe the details.
> Please note that I didn't asked *whether* to encode the abbreviation. I
> asked *how* to do it.
Doug and I have argued that the encoding is "Mr". Further detail can be
given in natural language as a note. You could use the various hacks
you've discussed, with modifier letters; but that is not "encoding",
that is "abusing Unicode to do markup". At least, that's the view I
take!
Perhaps a more challenging case is that at one time in English, it was
common to write and print "the" as "y<sup>e</sup>" (from older
"þ<sup>e</sup>"). Here, there is actually a potential contrast between
the forms "y<sup>e</sup>" ("the") and "ye" (2nd plural pronoun), and
the contrast could be realized: "the/ye idle braggarts are a curse
upon England". Is the encoding of "y<sup>e</sup>" to be "ye" or "the"?
A hard-line plain-texter such as myself would probably argue for
"the".
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
