Missing Latin superscript lowercase letters

[Asmus Freytag]

On 4/1/2023 12:26 PM, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>
>
>> 25 mars 2023 kl. 22:34 skrev Asmus Freytag via Unicode 
>> <unicode at corp.unicode.org>:
>>
>>> >for unit symbols. When used with temperature, it's interesting to note 
>>> that not all temperature
>>> >scales use it consistently. You don't see it with Fahrenheit very often, 
>>> for example, reflecting
>>> >differences in traditional keyboard layouts.
>>> Ok, let’s digress a bit… I do see that too, in news articles (in web 
>>> apps) from USA and British news
>>> companies and see also “C” when degrees Celsius is meant. But 
>>> writing farad (F) or coulomb (C)
>>> when referring to temperature is just horrible, and only 
>>> embarrassing for the journalist who wrote
>>> that. (Another related horror is “kph”, and there you cannot even 
>>> blame keyboard layouts.)
>>
>> I think it goes a bit too far to assume that any and all unit 
>> abbreviations have to be in the SI notation always.
>>
> Unit designations are not abbreviations. They are mathematical 
> symbols, like ”lim”, ”sin”, ”arctan”, ”∫”, ”+”, ”24”, … And they 
> participate in arithmetic/math expressions, like division, 
> multiplication (including integer powers), and multiplication with 
> numerical constants (like ”42.5”) and variables. While it is 
> permissible to, say, write ”sns” instead of ”sin” for the sinus 
> function, it is not a great idea to do so. Even worse would be to 
> write ”lim” instead of ”sin” for the sinus function (which is directly 
> comparable to the example with units above).
In scientific usage.
>
> The SI symbols are standardized, in a standard I’d say is the most 
> important in the modern world. More important than Unicode/10646… It 
> is a bit odd that representatives of a rather important IT standard 
> does not recognize the importance of the most important, overall, 
> standard in the world today (and for foreseeable future).

It is a standard, but that doesn't mean that it's the only standard for 
expressing weights and measures.

There may be jurisdictions where it's illegal to use another standard in 
a commercial or legal context, but that still doesn't mean that other 
conventions don't exist whether instead or in parallel to the SI. Those 
details depend on the jurisdiction.

>> I'm sure there are places where there are regulations that define the 
>> use of specific abbreviations and in any contexts where they apply to 
>> SI, you would be free to read "k" as kilo and "kph" as kilo-ph (and 
>> then reject that as undefined). The same is not true for ordinary 
>> everyday usage in places where SI units aren't customary.
>>
>> Likewise, the "ph" suffix to mean "per hour" is well established in 
>> places, while "/h" is not. That said, given that usage, I'd 
>> personally prefer kmph over kph.
>>
> I have never seen ”p” as the division operator in a properly formed 
> mathematical expression. Permitted? Yes, of course. But ”rare and 
> unusual”, and definitely a bad idea.
It's definitely common and the accepted usage for at least 330 million 
people.
>
>> For example, in the weather forecast, 80F never refers to capacity, 
>> is understood by the audience, and therefore there's no objection to 
>> that usage on ground of confusion with SI units.
>
> That is not it. The thing is to keep with conventional, even 
> standardised, notation or not.
The use of 80F is totally "standard" in those places where it is used. 
No amount of wishing something else will change that. (I suspect that 
there are standards that codify that usage, but I'm not willing to dig 
that deep for the purpose of this discussion: it's enough that it's a 
commonly used convention).
> Even when keeping with conventional notation for units, there are 
> ambiguities that need to be resolved by context: e.g. is B bel or 
> byte? With a prefix (at a minimum, usually there is much more 
> context), the ambiguity is resolved, there are no decibyte nor any 
> megabinarybel (theoretically, there is megabel, but in practice not). 
> If widening to chemistry, B could stand for boron; while not a unit of 
> measure, it will have the same style as a (properly written) unit 
> symbol. But there is no need to diverge from standard (pun intended) 
> practice just because resolution by context is possible for the 
> divergent notation.
We are not discussing someone creating an alternate system just to be 
different. We are talking about alternate systems that exist, are widely 
understood among its users and that there are jurisdictions that have 
decided not to mandate the use of SI (except for selected purposes).
>
> Your example is just like if one were to use V for hydrogen, just 
> because one would know from a particular context that hydrogen is 
> meant and not vanadium. I think if anyone were to write V and mean 
> hydrogen, there would be heavy criticism.
>
No, the example would be if Germany had adopted "S" for "Sauerstoff" 
instead of "O". This did not happen, for various reasons, but in theory 
you can have a translated system of element names that is as 
self-consistent as the standard one. (Just like some countries translate 
character names in 10646).
> True, people may err in various ways. But I’m referring to people who 
> should know better, like w.r.t. temperature: journalists and weather 
> presenters.
There is no "better" here. Presenting weather forecasts in temperatures 
in centigrade to an American audience is pretty near useless.
>
> (Nit: I’ve even seen F° and C°, which looks even more, ummm, 
> uneducated. And that in a worldwide well-known weather app. Go find! 
> :-) They use technology from another company that gives prognosis for 
> the amount of dandruff in the air… (but not in English). To make the 
> whole thing even more comical, they pride themselves of being sooo 
> accurate… Two all-year-round April’s fools jokes :-).)
>
>> However, usage is not consistent, you see it both with and without 
>> the degree sign, and without naming names, websites by academic 
>> institutions are just as likely to leave it off as popular websites 
>> are likely to add it.
>>
>> As you can see, actual usage is all over the place and as Unicode is 
>> not prescriptive, we simply deal with what's out there.
>
> But you do complain when things ”out there” are not up to par. Like in 
> the ZWJ discussion not long ago.

There's a difference between being "descriptive" in your encoding 
(describing how certain text elements map to encoded character sequences 
whether or not these elements are preferred in any "prescriptive" 
system), and being prescriptive in what certain encoded elements are 
intended for.

A./

>
> /Kent K
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20230401/3efa014a/attachment.htm>