Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Marc Lacoste (talk | contribs) →Lost semantic integrity: new section |
→Lost semantic integrity: implementation loses ² |
||
Line 21:
I'm pretty surprised of this guideline: the [[semantic integrity]] of the super/subscript is lost to favour rendering hacks. The real meaning is lost by using <code><sup></code> or <code><sub></code>: when copy-pasting the example w{{sup|i}}x{{sup|2}}z{{sup|(n + 6)}} <small>[<nowiki>w{{sup|i}}x{{sup|2}}z{{sup|(n + 6)}}</nowiki>]</small> you end up with <code>wix2z(n + 6)</code> while the unicode wⁱx²z⁽ⁿ⁺⁶⁾ stays <code>wⁱx²z⁽ⁿ⁺⁶⁾</code>. Presentation shortcomings should be treated separately (by using a different font or by automatically enlarging/shifting sub/superscript to a more visible size, I don't know precisely, I'm no expert) Plus the wikitext is easier to edit in unicode. It's not 2010 anymore, unicode support is great everywhere!--[[User:Marc Lacoste|Marc Lacoste]] ([[User talk:Marc Lacoste|talk]]) 09:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
:Unicode causes many complications, for example in my browser I cannot type those suffix Unicode characters and I only know to copy and paste them from elsewhere. Also searching for "2" does not find "²". The Wikipedia search treats "²" as if it didn't exist, though a regex search can spot it. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 11:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
| |||