[NTG-context] Monospace fallback kerning

Alan Braslau braslau.list at comcast.net
Wed Dec 19 19:28:50 CET 2018


On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:16:23 +0100
Hans Γ…berg <haberg-1 at telia.com> wrote:

> 
> > On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:01, Alan Braslau <braslau.list at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:46:30 +0100
> > Hans Γ…berg <haberg-1 at telia.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight typographic difference between π‘₯Β²β‚€ and π‘₯β‚€Β² by letting the sub- or superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the one that comes before. For example, π‘₯β‚€Β² might mean the square of π‘₯β‚€, and π‘₯Β²β‚€ the component 0 of π‘₯Β², 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 (π‘₯β‚€)Β² or (π‘₯Β²)β‚€ in such cases, and I have also seen π‘₯Β²|β‚€ 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


More information about the ntg-context mailing list