Re: [NTG-context] Monospace fallback kerning

On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:28, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:16:23 +0100 Hans Åberg wrote:

...

...

On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:01, Alan Braslau wrote:

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:46:30 +0100 Hans Åberg 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.

If you mean tensor component notation, that is different, as any component can be shifted. In pure math, one is more likely to see them stacked, also for tensors in differential geometry, as one typically indicates their type somehow.