Talk:Unicode subscripts and superscripts

x^x| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-top:0;" |- style="font-size:80%;" x^t ! !colspan=3|markup !colspan=3|unicode |- !style="font-size:80%;"| copied | H₂O || 3² || 5¹⁄₄ || H₂O || 3² || 5¹⁄₄ |- !style="font-size:80%;"| pasted | H2O || 32 || 51⁄4 || H₂O || 3² || 5¹⁄₄ |}

For anyone considering whether to use these or not: The Unicode Consortium and current HTML/CSS guidelines recommend using markup (such as <sup>) which will look more consistent. However if the reader copy/pastes text with markup they will often lose said markup when they paste the text. ―MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

x^ln

REDIRECT [[
REDIRECT Target page name
REDIRECT [[
REDIRECT Target page name

]] ]] ==Table syntax== Is there a reason why the table is in HTML, not in wiki syntax? --92.226.196.72 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	A	B	C	D	E	F
U+207x	x⁰	xⁱ			x⁴	x⁵	x⁶	x⁷	x⁸	x⁹	x⁺	x⁻	x⁼	x⁽	x⁾	xⁿ
U+208x	x₀	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅	x₆	x₇	x₈	x₉	x₊	x₋	x₌	x₍	x₎
U+209x	xₐ	xₑ	xₒ	xₓ	xₔ

	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	A	B	C	D	E	F
U+207x	x⁰	xⁱ			x⁴	x⁵	x⁶	x⁷	x⁸	x⁹	x⁺	x⁻	x⁼	x⁽	x⁾	xⁿ
U+208x	x₀	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅	x₆	x₇	x₈	x₉	x₊	x₋	x₌	x₍	x₎
U+209x	x_a	x_e	x_o	x_x	x_ə

No, and I replaced it with your version. babbage (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia: ?

Can somebody explain the addition of "Wikipedia:" to the page name?

This does not appear to have been done with other pages describing Unicode subsets.

The move was mistaken, since the topic of which character encoding to use to represent superscripts and subscripts is not Wikipedia-specific, but rather a topic that is relevant to all of digital typography. Thus it is incorrect to say that it's not encyclopedic (which was the argument given for the move). It should be moved back. If one claims that "Unicode subscripts and superscripts" doesn't "count" as a worthy topic for an encyclopedia article, then you have to move half of Wikipedia out of the article namespace into the project namespace. It doesn't pan out upon analysis. — ¾-10 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I asked at the help desk for someone to move it back, and it was restored. — ¾-10 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording

"...your browser for instance produces 11⁄12..."

Not everyone reading this will be using a browser. Not everyone reading an encyclopedia expects to be addressed personally nor is it a very appropriate example. Very poor use of language here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.142.230 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Browser support

I am surprised that Google Chome on my tablet (Samsung Tab 2 - GT-N8000) is missing many of these chars, only showing 1-4 in both, while on my phone they are ok. I also tested in the app "Unicode Chars" with the same results. Maybe some fonts need to be installed, but it isnt obvious how to do that.

I dont see the same problem with Firefox on the tab, and no problems with Chrome on Ubuntu. Are there any other browsers with problems on some platforms? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that older mobile devices may lack Unicode support. Maybe the phone is newer and has more Unicode support. Do you need some specific Unicode superscripts and subscripts for some purposes? 2A01:119F:21D:7900:89A7:4322:8B46:1724 (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1120 more superscripts, subscripts and small capitals

An IP editor keeps adding an external link to a document by Piotr Grochowski requesting to add 1120 more superscripts, subscripts and small capitals to the Unicode Standard. I do not believe that it is appropriate to link to this document from this article because even a well-written character encoding proposal is not notable until and unless it is accepted by the Unicode Technical Committee (UTC); and in this case the document is so poorly written and lacking in substance that there is zero chance that the UTC would ever accept it. BabelStone (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That author and some editor here consistently reverses the meaning of "true superscripts" from how most people understand that term. The <sup> is supposed to produce a "true superscript". The fact that many font rendering engines just shrink the full size character is a fault with the font rendering, not with the choice of encoding.

From the Unicode docs it is apparent that they intended these glyphs to also be "true superscripts" and actually indistinguishable from sup/sub markup in a properly-working font engine. However font designers thought these were much more useful for numerator/denominator fractions, which are far worse when attempted with sup/sub markup and thus more important to find a substitute for. This means they are much smaller and closer to the baseline than most fonts want for super/sub scripts. Unicode intended this to automatically happen for numbers separated by the fraction slash, but as far as I can tell almost no font rendering software does this, and it may be a terrible idea as it requires it to parse out exactly what portion of the surrounding text is the numerator and denominator. I expect fixing this fraction rendering will not happen for decades at least after any possible fixing of super/subscript rendering, so the use of these glyphs for numerator/denominator is probably a very good idea even it is not what Unicode wanted.Spitzak (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^xt

x^t

<x>r