- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:27:13 +0200
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd):
> > 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.
I agree and will make the change.
Thanks,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 09:28:02 UTC