From: Thomas H. <the...@us...> - 2010-11-30 14:15:17
|
Currently in all DejaVu fonts the subscript numbers (and the others from U+2070...208E) are aligned with the baseline (high subscripts). Similarly, superscripts are positioned below the ascender line (low superscripts). In my opinion this is a poor design choice which prevents many useful applications of these glyphs. I propose to shift these subscripts vertically below the baseline (low subscripts), and the superscripts above the ascender line (high superscripts). I think it is more useful because: - Low subscripts are used in many technical and scientific expressions (vector indices, chemical formulas) - High superscripts are used in many texts, e.g. footnotes, mathematical power, etc. - High subscripts and low superscripts are only useful for one purpose: diagonal fractions (like ¾). However, the most commonly used fractions have their own glyphs and this is probably enough for most applications. This small vertical shift would not affect metrics. Any opinions on this? Regards, Thomas |
From: <st...@sa...> - 2010-11-30 14:22:49
|
I would second this--the non-subscripting of the subscript numbers has been an issue for me for a long time, and prevents the use of DejaVu as-is in my own scholarly community where people are used to seeing their subscripts as, well, subscripts. Steve Quoting Thomas Henlich <the...@us...>: > Currently in all DejaVu fonts the subscript numbers (and the others > from U+2070...208E) are aligned with the baseline (high subscripts). > Similarly, superscripts are positioned below the ascender line (low > superscripts). In my opinion this is a poor design choice which > prevents many useful applications of these glyphs. > > I propose to shift these subscripts vertically below the baseline (low > subscripts), and the superscripts above the ascender line (high > superscripts). I think it is more useful because: > > - Low subscripts are used in many technical and scientific expressions > (vector indices, chemical formulas) > - High superscripts are used in many texts, e.g. footnotes, > mathematical power, etc. > - High subscripts and low superscripts are only useful for one > purpose: diagonal fractions (like ¾). However, the most commonly used > fractions have their own glyphs and this is probably enough for most > applications. > > This small vertical shift would not affect metrics. > > Any opinions on this? > > Regards, Thomas > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! > Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by > optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the > Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > DejaVu-fonts mailing list > Dej...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dejavu-fonts > > |
From: Michael E. <ev...@ev...> - 2010-12-05 15:50:36
|
I'd like to see a screen shot. On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:22, st...@sa... wrote: > I would second this--the non-subscripting of the subscript numbers has > been an issue for me for a long time, and prevents the use of DejaVu > as-is in my own scholarly community where people are used to seeing > their subscripts as, well, subscripts. > > Steve > > Quoting Thomas Henlich <the...@us...>: > >> Currently in all DejaVu fonts the subscript numbers (and the others >> from U+2070...208E) are aligned with the baseline (high subscripts). >> Similarly, superscripts are positioned below the ascender line (low >> superscripts). In my opinion this is a poor design choice which >> prevents many useful applications of these glyphs. >> >> I propose to shift these subscripts vertically below the baseline (low >> subscripts), and the superscripts above the ascender line (high >> superscripts). I think it is more useful because: >> >> - Low subscripts are used in many technical and scientific expressions >> (vector indices, chemical formulas) >> - High superscripts are used in many texts, e.g. footnotes, >> mathematical power, etc. >> - High subscripts and low superscripts are only useful for one >> purpose: diagonal fractions (like ¾). However, the most commonly used >> fractions have their own glyphs and this is probably enough for most >> applications. >> >> This small vertical shift would not affect metrics. >> >> Any opinions on this? >> >> Regards, Thomas >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! >> Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by >> optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the >> Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> DejaVu-fonts mailing list >> Dej...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dejavu-fonts >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! > Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by > optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the > Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > DejaVu-fonts mailing list > Dej...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dejavu-fonts Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ |
From: Ben L. <ben...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 14:35:06
|
Keep in mind that these glyphs aren't for real sub- or superscript, and that because of that these glyphs may not have the properties you expect from sub- and superscript. If you want real subscripts, it's your program that has to do the text layout. Greetings Ben Thomas Henlich wrote: > Currently in all DejaVu fonts the subscript numbers (and the others > from U+2070...208E) are aligned with the baseline (high subscripts). > Similarly, superscripts are positioned below the ascender line (low > superscripts). In my opinion this is a poor design choice which > prevents many useful applications of these glyphs. > > I propose to shift these subscripts vertically below the baseline (low > subscripts), and the superscripts above the ascender line (high > superscripts). I think it is more useful because: > > - Low subscripts are used in many technical and scientific expressions > (vector indices, chemical formulas) > - High superscripts are used in many texts, e.g. footnotes, > mathematical power, etc. > - High subscripts and low superscripts are only useful for one > purpose: diagonal fractions (like ¾). However, the most commonly used > fractions have their own glyphs and this is probably enough for most > applications. > > This small vertical shift would not affect metrics. > > Any opinions on this? > > Regards, Thomas |
From: <st...@sa...> - 2010-11-30 14:37:47
|
I don't follow this. Is there a UTR or the like which explains why subscript and superscript characters are not actually sub/superscripted? Steve Quoting Ben Laenen <ben...@gm...>: > > Keep in mind that these glyphs aren't for real sub- or superscript, and that > because of that these glyphs may not have the properties you expect from sub- > and superscript. If you want real subscripts, it's your program that > has to do > the text layout. > > Greetings > Ben > > > > Thomas Henlich wrote: >> Currently in all DejaVu fonts the subscript numbers (and the others >> from U+2070...208E) are aligned with the baseline (high subscripts). >> Similarly, superscripts are positioned below the ascender line (low >> superscripts). In my opinion this is a poor design choice which >> prevents many useful applications of these glyphs. >> >> I propose to shift these subscripts vertically below the baseline (low >> subscripts), and the superscripts above the ascender line (high >> superscripts). I think it is more useful because: >> >> - Low subscripts are used in many technical and scientific expressions >> (vector indices, chemical formulas) >> - High superscripts are used in many texts, e.g. footnotes, >> mathematical power, etc. >> - High subscripts and low superscripts are only useful for one >> purpose: diagonal fractions (like ¾). However, the most commonly used >> fractions have their own glyphs and this is probably enough for most >> applications. >> >> This small vertical shift would not affect metrics. >> >> Any opinions on this? >> >> Regards, Thomas > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! > Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by > optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the > Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > DejaVu-fonts mailing list > Dej...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dejavu-fonts > > |
From: Michael E. <ev...@ev...> - 2010-11-30 14:46:07
|
On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:34, Ben Laenen wrote: > Keep in mind that these glyphs aren't for real sub- or superscript, and that > because of that these glyphs may not have the properties you expect from sub- > and superscript. If you want real subscripts, it's your program that has to do > the text layout. I do not believe that this is correct, and I am responsible for having encoded many of the super- and sub-script characters in the standard. The UTC likes to think that "styled text" is what should be used for "scription". But in the real world (in linguistics, if not in maths) people want to be able to exchange these in plain text without data loss. For all sorts of things. I once typeset a Cornish New Testament; we were certainly happy that the verse numbers could be set with genuine superscripted characters, portable between different word-processing systems and on the web. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ |
From: Denis J. <mo...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 14:54:15
|
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Michael Everson <ev...@ev...> wrote: > On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:34, Ben Laenen wrote: > >> Keep in mind that these glyphs aren't for real sub- or superscript, and that >> because of that these glyphs may not have the properties you expect from sub- >> and superscript. If you want real subscripts, it's your program that has to do >> the text layout. > > I do not believe that this is correct, and I am responsible for having encoded many of the super- and sub-script characters in the standard. > > The UTC likes to think that "styled text" is what should be used for "scription". But in the real world (in linguistics, if not in maths) people want to be able to exchange these in plain text without data loss. > > For all sorts of things. I once typeset a Cornish New Testament; we were certainly happy that the verse numbers could be set with genuine superscripted characters, portable between different word-processing systems and on the web. > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ I think it's fair to say these characters should be higher for superscript and lower for subscript. However ordinals (ª U+00AA, º U+00BA) should stay as they are. For numbers, we could have 'numr' and 'dnom' variants for fractions at the same high as the current super/subscripts. Denis |
From: Ben L. <ben...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 14:59:38
|
Michael Everson wrote: > On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:34, Ben Laenen wrote: > > Keep in mind that these glyphs aren't for real sub- or superscript, and > > that because of that these glyphs may not have the properties you expect > > from sub- and superscript. If you want real subscripts, it's your > > program that has to do the text layout. > > I do not believe that this is correct, and I am responsible for having > encoded many of the super- and sub-script characters in the standard. > > The UTC likes to think that "styled text" is what should be used for > "scription". But in the real world (in linguistics, if not in maths) > people want to be able to exchange these in plain text without data loss. > > For all sorts of things. I once typeset a Cornish New Testament; we were > certainly happy that the verse numbers could be set with genuine > superscripted characters, portable between different word-processing > systems and on the web. It's always been my understanding that these sub- and superscripts would have a different semantic from the regular characters, and therefore it would be different. Also, just browsing a few fonts and 'till now they all have subscripts above base lane and superscripts below ascender height. I don't think they've all been looking at each other, so there should be a reason why they all do it, right? In any case, the position of these glyphs date back to Vera, and for that reason we're not just going to move them. We only change these original glyphs if they must be fixed. Greetings Ben |
From: Michael E. <ev...@ev...> - 2010-11-30 15:16:36
|
On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:59, Ben Laenen wrote: > It's always been my understanding that these sub- and superscripts would have a different semantic from the regular characters, and therefore it would be different. 1. Says who? 2. What "different semantic"? I use superscript numbers to indicate verse numbers portably. They're numbers. There are some phonetic superscripts and subscripts that have particular uses in certain transcription systems. In any case I'd like to see screen shots to see what people are talking about, and I'd like to see them including the Latin 1 superscripts. In general I would say that all superscripts and subscripts should be more or less harmonized as to height. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ |
From: Michael E. <ev...@ev...> - 2010-11-30 15:18:28
|
Quoting Steve Tinney: > Do you mean that the subscripts sit entirely on the baseline, or that their tops go above the baseline? The former is unusual in my experience, and the latter is common. I would probably centre the stem of a 3 or the centre of an 8 on the baseline, and balance everything from there. (Assuming lining digits, not old-style). |
From: <st...@sa...> - 2010-11-30 15:07:36
|
Quoting Ben Laenen <ben...@gm...>: > It's always been my understanding that these sub- and superscripts would have > a different semantic from the regular characters, and therefore it would be > different. > > Also, just browsing a few fonts and 'till now they all have subscripts above > base lane and superscripts below ascender height. I don't think they've all > been looking at each other, so there should be a reason why they all do it, > right? Do you mean that the subscripts sit entirely on the baseline, or that their tops go above the baseline? The former is unusual in my experience, and the latter is common. > In any case, the position of these glyphs date back to Vera, and for that > reason we're not just going to move them. We only change these > original glyphs if they must be fixed. So there is no point in discussing this. Message received. Steve |
From: Ben L. <ben...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 15:22:53
|
st...@sa... wrote: > Quoting Ben Laenen <ben...@gm...>: > > It's always been my understanding that these sub- and superscripts would > > have a different semantic from the regular characters, and therefore it > > would be different. > > > > Also, just browsing a few fonts and 'till now they all have subscripts > > above base lane and superscripts below ascender height. I don't think > > they've all been looking at each other, so there should be a reason why > > they all do it, right? > > Do you mean that the subscripts sit entirely on the baseline, or that their > tops go above the baseline? The former is unusual in my experience, and > the latter is common. > > > In any case, the position of these glyphs date back to Vera, and for that > > reason we're not just going to move them. We only change these > > original glyphs if they must be fixed. > > So there is no point in discussing this. Message received. I didn't say we'd never do it, but we'll only do it after a thorough discussion where we all agree that it's the only good way. For now it looks like the subscript numbers were taken as an example for the subscript letters, maybe that was wrong. Ben |
From: <st...@sa...> - 2010-11-30 15:39:41
|
Quoting Ben Laenen <ben...@gm...>: > st...@sa... wrote: >> So there is no point in discussing this. Message received. > > I didn't say we'd never do it, but we'll only do it after a thorough > discussion where we all agree that it's the only good way. > > For now it looks like the subscript numbers were taken as an example for the > subscript letters, maybe that was wrong. Fair enough. I wonder about the technical implications of styling subscripts which are not subscripted in the font. If someone uses U+2080 and friends in a styled context and some fonts have them subscripted and others not, then changing the font may also necessitate changing the styling. In plain text, my people (the swelling masses of individuals who work with Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform) use numeric indices widely to distinguish distinctly written but homophonic signs (so, we have ba (understood, ba1), ba2, ba3 etc. It is a lot clearer to see the subscripting in plain text, so we use U+2080 ff. in Unicode-encoded plain text (but we make do with 0..9 in ASCII-encoded plain text). Fonts which sit the subscripts on the baseline are distracting because they "look wrong". Admittedly, this is an aesthetic rather than a technical issue, but aesthetics count too. Steve |
From: Thomas H. <the...@us...> - 2010-11-30 16:17:54
|
> For now it looks like the subscript numbers were taken as an example for the > subscript letters, maybe that was wrong. Specifically, I'm taking only about the Super/subscripts for technical/mathematical use (U+207x ... U+208x) and superscript 1,2,3. The remaining letters are another story because they are used in linguistics (I do not propose to change these). Only the last three come from Vera. In all probability they were included in ISO-8859-1 and CP-850 for typical "high superscript" usage: footnote numbers (very limited, naturally) and for writing things like m² (square meters) and m³ (cubic meters). Never were they intended to write fractions (because there were no matching subscripts). It seems the font designers put them "low" because they would fit in better with the text. Later someone added the other superscripts to match the existing design, and someone added "high" subscripts with whatever their motivation was. Looking at other fonts, e.g. Microsoft's Calibri, there are cases where the design proposed by me (low subscripts, high superscripts) was done (for letters and numbers alike), probably with the same line of thoughts. Thomas |
From: Denis J. <mo...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 16:48:34
|
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Thomas Henlich <the...@us...> wrote: >> For now it looks like the subscript numbers were taken as an example for the >> subscript letters, maybe that was wrong. > > Specifically, I'm taking only about the Super/subscripts for > technical/mathematical use (U+207x ... U+208x) and superscript 1,2,3. > The remaining letters are another story because they are used in > linguistics (I do not propose to change these). > > Only the last three come from Vera. In all probability they were > included in ISO-8859-1 and CP-850 for typical "high superscript" > usage: footnote numbers (very limited, naturally) and for writing > things like m² (square meters) and m³ (cubic meters). Never were they > intended to write fractions (because there were no matching > subscripts). > > It seems the font designers put them "low" because they would fit in > better with the text. Later someone added the other superscripts to > match the existing design, and someone added "high" subscripts with > whatever their motivation was. > > Looking at other fonts, e.g. Microsoft's Calibri, there are cases > where the design proposed by me (low subscripts, high superscripts) > was done (for letters and numbers alike), probably with the same line > of thoughts. It seems most new Windows Vista/7 fonts have higher superscripts and lower subscripts, even modifier letters. Here's how some other fonts display the string "hpH19 ¹⁹ ₁₉". http://b.imagehost.org/0664/Super-subscript.png If we do change super/subscripts digits, it would make sense to also adjust modifier letters, superscripts letters and subscripts letters. We just have to make sure we don't shift ordinals. Denis |