A last missing link for interoperable representation

[Richard Wordingham via Unicode]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:02:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> On 1/14/2019 3:37 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
> Hans Åberg via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
> <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> Hans Åberg wrote,
>   
> How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: ����������́  
> 
> Thought about using a combining accent.  Figured it would just
> display with a dotted circle but neglected to try it out first.  It
> actually renders perfectly here.  /That's/ good to know.  (smile)  
> 
> It is a bit off here. One can try math, too: the derivative of ��(��)
> is ��̇(��).
> 
> No it isn't.  You should be using a spacing character for
> differentiation. 
> 
> Sorry, but there may be different conventions. The dot / double-dot
> above is definitely common usage in physics.
> 
> A./

Apologies.  It was positioned in the parenthesis, and it looked like a
misplaced U+0301.

Richard.