Fwd: Why incomplete subscript/superscript alphabet ?
Oren Watson
oren.watson at gmail.com
Fri Oct 7 14:32:16 CDT 2016
Hmm... "filling in Latin alphabet encoding gaps without clear use cases" is
exactly what was done for the blackboard bold letters.
I scarcely think that a use case was submitted for every one of the
blackboard bold etc letters in the mathematical set; merely the use of
blackboard bold for a general purpose of denoting sets such as the
naturals, reals, complex numbers etc, and the fact that arbitrary letters
might be used if a mathematician desired, seems to have sufficed.
I believe the same logic applies to the case of linguistics, where the use
of superscripts are a common convention.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/7/2016 11:25 AM, Oren Watson wrote:
>
>> Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all
>> remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the
>> SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode for
>> new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the mathematical characters?
>>
>>
> I don't see that the use of Unicode characters for new linguistic theories
> and ideas is arbitrarily constrained as it stands. So no, I don't think it
> make sense to submit such a proposal on spec. I don't understand peoples'
> fascination with multiplying the encoding of the Latin alphabet A-Z over
> and over and over again. Modifier letters are different from the
> mathematical styled alphabets -- modifier letters include many letters and
> symbols beyond A-Z, and there isn't any clear marginal benefit in trying to
> "complete" their set somehow by filling in Latin alphabet encoding gaps
> without clear use cases.
>
> --Ken
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20161007/148a0fc7/attachment.html>
More information about the Unicode
mailing list