Re: Monospace fallback kerning

[Alan Braslau <braslau.list@comcast.net>]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:16:23 +0100
Hans Åberg <haberg-1@telia.com> wrote:

> 
> > On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:01, Alan Braslau <braslau.list@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:46:30 +0100
> > Hans Åberg <haberg-1@telia.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight typographic difference between 𝑥²₀ and 𝑥₀² by letting the sub- or superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the one that comes before. For example, 𝑥₀² might mean the square of 𝑥₀, and 𝑥²₀ the component 0 of 𝑥², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such things are left for the reader to interpret.
> > 
> > Isn't that poor nomenclature, being ambiguous?
> 
> Indeed, but also the norm due to practical limitations.
> 
> > I would explicitly write (𝑥₀)² or (𝑥²)₀ in such cases, and I have also seen 𝑥²|₀ used for example, or other non-ambiguous shorthands.
> 
> Perhaps it might become cumbersome to carry such notation along all through, reserving it for definitions. 

In physics, we love such constructions, such as the so-called Einstein notation as one example.

Alan
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________