A last missing link for interoperable representation

[Hans Åberg via Unicode]

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 02:18, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Also in differential geometry, as for curves.

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

In MacOS, one can drop the combined character into the character table, and see that it is U+0307 COMBINING DOT ABOVE.

It comes out right when typeset in ConTeXt.