Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

On 10/31/2018 11:10 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: which, if my understanding of "convient" is correct, carefully does [not] quite say that it is *wrong* not to superscript, but that one should superscript when one can because that is the convention in typography. Draft style may differ from mail style, and this, from typography, only due to the limitations imposed by input interfaces. These limitations are artificial and mainly the consequence of insufficient development of said interfaces. If the computer is anything good for, then that should also include the transition from typewriter fallbacks to the true digital representation of all natural languages. Latin not excluded. It is a fallacy that all text output on a computer should match the convention of "fine typography". Much that is written on computers represents an (unedited) first draft. Giving such texts the appearance of texts, which in the day of hot metal typography, was reserved for texts that were fully edited and in many cases intended for posterity is doing a disservice to the reader. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in applying certain styling attributes to things like e-mail or discussion papers. Well-placed emphasis can make such texts more readable (without requiring that they pay attention to all other facets of "fine typography".) A./