5 ms·

For me it was always annoying that Unicode doesn't allow to code full set of subscripts/superscripts. It's so obvious and more necessary than many emojis they a

by xvilka 6y ago

For me it was always annoying that Unicode doesn't allow to code full set of subscripts/superscripts. It's so obvious and more necessary than many emojis they added recently.

lifthrasiir 6y ago
Unicode subscripts and superscripts mainly exist because of IPA. They are not general ways to encode arbitrary sub/superscripts as it would require too many letters to be encoded.
- kevincox 6y ago
  They could just add a subscript and superscript modifier.
  - pdpi 6y ago
    Superscripts are a typesetting concern, not an encoding concern.
    - kevincox 6y ago
      If they change the semantic meaning of the text is that not under Unicode's purview?
      - Sniffnoy 6y ago
        Italics change the semantic meaning of text too, but they're still rich text, not plaintext. Unicode has been generally taken the attitude that Unicode is for plaintext, not rich text, even if it's stretched the meaning of that a bit. (There's also the time they goofed up and added interlinear annotation, which is pretty clearly not plaintext, but they've since discouraged the use of that and I don't think they want to make any more mistakes like that.)
        kevincox 6y ago
        Unicode 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 have italic characters (at least for A-Z a-z) although they are labeled as math characters.
        Sniffnoy 6y ago
        Sure, I could have chosen a more watertight example to demonstrate the point. (And I think that "although" is an important "although" -- those characters are not meant to be used for ordinary italics; if you do this, you're going to cause significant problems for anyone trying to process your text, such as by, say, searching it.) It doesn't have, I don't know, characters that are blue-colored bold italic underlined superscripts, you know? Whatever exceptions or seeming-exceptions Unicode may have made, they're not looking to make more of them.
        kevincox 6y ago
        For sure. I think you are right. I'm just pointing out that the line here is much blurrier than Unicode probably wishes it was.
        Sniffnoy 6y ago
        Oh, ha, yeah, no question there.
    - ComputerGuru 6y ago
      No they’re not. Superscripts and subscripts in English as used in literature may be a typesetting concern but that’s not their only purpose. Eg in chemical notations or in mathematical text it is not a matter of typesetting but an actual separate symbol with distinct semantics.
  - cogburnd02 6y ago
    Well that's actully what U+008B (PLD, Partial Line Down) and U+008C (PLU, Partial Line Up (though officially it's inexplicably Partial Line Backward)) were originally for: PLD text PLU would produce a subscript and PLU text PLD would produce a superscript.
neolog 6y ago
There is a proposal [1] that is looking for contributors. [1] https://github.com/stevengj/subsuper-proposal https://github.com/stevengj/subsuper-proposal

by xvilka 6y ago

For me it was always annoying that Unicode doesn't allow to code full set of subscripts/superscripts. It's so obvious and more necessary than many emojis they added recently.

lifthrasiir 6y ago

Unicode subscripts and superscripts mainly exist because of IPA. They are not general ways to encode arbitrary sub/superscripts as it would require too many letters to be encoded.

kevincox 6y ago
They could just add a subscript and superscript modifier.
- pdpi 6y ago
  Superscripts are a typesetting concern, not an encoding concern.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    If they change the semantic meaning of the text is that not under Unicode's purview?
    - Sniffnoy 6y ago
      Italics change the semantic meaning of text too, but they're still rich text, not plaintext. Unicode has been generally taken the attitude that Unicode is for plaintext, not rich text, even if it's stretched the meaning of that a bit. (There's also the time they goofed up and added interlinear annotation, which is pretty clearly not plaintext, but they've since discouraged the use of that and I don't think they want to make any more mistakes like that.)
      - kevincox 6y ago
        Unicode 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 have italic characters (at least for A-Z a-z) although they are labeled as math characters.
        Sniffnoy 6y ago
        Sure, I could have chosen a more watertight example to demonstrate the point. (And I think that "although" is an important "although" -- those characters are not meant to be used for ordinary italics; if you do this, you're going to cause significant problems for anyone trying to process your text, such as by, say, searching it.) It doesn't have, I don't know, characters that are blue-colored bold italic underlined superscripts, you know? Whatever exceptions or seeming-exceptions Unicode may have made, they're not looking to make more of them.
        kevincox 6y ago
        For sure. I think you are right. I'm just pointing out that the line here is much blurrier than Unicode probably wishes it was.
        Sniffnoy 6y ago
        Oh, ha, yeah, no question there.
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    No they’re not. Superscripts and subscripts in English as used in literature may be a typesetting concern but that’s not their only purpose. Eg in chemical notations or in mathematical text it is not a matter of typesetting but an actual separate symbol with distinct semantics.
- cogburnd02 6y ago
  Well that's actully what U+008B (PLD, Partial Line Down) and U+008C (PLU, Partial Line Up (though officially it's inexplicably Partial Line Backward)) were originally for: PLD text PLU would produce a subscript and PLU text PLD would produce a superscript.

neolog 6y ago

There is a proposal [1] that is looking for contributors. [1] https://github.com/stevengj/subsuper-proposal https://github.com/stevengj/subsuper-proposal