- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:14:42 +0100
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Indeed. I meant to continue using the term "super-scripted glyphs".
> The full sentence then becomes:
>
> Using super-scripted glyphs is optional; UAs may also scale and
> position other glyphs for use in footnote calls.
>
> Let me know if there are better suggestions.
Is perhaps "superscript glyphs" (with or without
hyphen) perhaps better than "supercripted ...",
since to me "supercripted" automatically encompasses
the case that you go on to describe ("UAs may also
scale and position other glyphs for use in footnote
calls"), whereas "superscript glyphs" seems to me
to refer to glyphs specifically intended for use
as superscripts.
Philip TAYLOR
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 23:15:22 UTC