| Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Handling of superscript and subscript letters Mar 26th 2012, 18:25 Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary | | | | Line 40: | Line 40: | | | #: That's a bizarre interpretation. The vote explicitly does not affect superscript numbers, so no matter which option passes (if any option passes), our handling of superscript numbers will be unaffected. Assuming our current consensus on how to handle them does not fall apart for other reasons, we will handle them a month from now the same way we handle them now. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 06:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | | #: That's a bizarre interpretation. The vote explicitly does not affect superscript numbers, so no matter which option passes (if any option passes), our handling of superscript numbers will be unaffected. Assuming our current consensus on how to handle them does not fall apart for other reasons, we will handle them a month from now the same way we handle them now. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 06:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | | | #::Yes, but you forgot the cases where numbers and letters (or special characters, in this case) are mixed. By a strict interpretation, that would mean that depending on the outcome of the vote, letters would use <sup> while the numbers are unaffected per the motion and would remain as Unicode super/subscripts. This has a disastrous result for mathematical and chemical formulae. -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UT | | #::Yes, but you forgot the cases where numbers and letters (or special characters, in this case) are mixed. By a strict interpretation, that would mean that depending on the outcome of the vote, letters would use <sup> while the numbers are unaffected per the motion and would remain as Unicode super/subscripts. This has a disastrous result for mathematical and chemical formulae. -- [[User:Liliana-60|Liliana]] [[User talk:Liliana-60|•]] 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UT | | | + | #:::Numbers' being unaffected would mean that anything can be done to them: and when they alongside <sup>'ed characters of course they'd be <sup>'ed also.<span class="Unicode">​—[[User:Msh210|msh210]]℠</span> ([[user talk:Msh210|talk]]) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | | | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' None of the options equals "follow the HTML and Unicode standards." Any of them sets the very bad precedent of establishing specific regulations that contradict or supersede open Web standards in an open dictionary. Madness. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2012-03-22 14:58 z</small>'' | | # [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] '''Oppose''' None of the options equals "follow the HTML and Unicode standards." Any of them sets the very bad precedent of establishing specific regulations that contradict or supersede open Web standards in an open dictionary. Madness. ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2012-03-22 14:58 z</small>'' | | | | | |
Latest revision as of 18:25, 26 March 2012 [edit] Handling of superscript and subscript letters - Voting on: how to represent superscript and subscript letters, such at the "ty" and "r" in the 1856 image to the right, which are superscript/subscript letters rather than special characters such as the modifiers in the 1997 citation below.
 - Option 1: Whenever characters are available in Unicode which resemble such superscript or subscript letters, use those characters (e.g. "ᵗʸ").
- Option 2: Use regular letters within <sup> / <sub> tags ("ty") and/or use other mechanisms to effect superscription/subscription of regular letters.
- If one of these two options attracts a two-thirds majority of the votes cast minus abstentions, it passes. If neither option attracts sufficient votes to pass, the status quo (in which there is no specific regulation one way or another) continues.
- Voters can also explicitly vote for the status quo, if they prefer the lack of regulation to both of the proposed regulations.
- Voters who oppose this vote or its options, including those who favor some other option (such as representing superscripts with similar-looking characters but subscripts with HTML, or not having superscripts and subscripts at all), can vote "Oppose".
- Neither option affects the representation of superscript and subscript numbers, such as the one in "H2O"/"H₂O". Neither option affects the use of Unicode modifier letters to reproduce modifier letters, as in this quotation:
- 1997 Robert S. Bauer, Paul K. Benedict, Modern Cantonese phonology, page 20:
- The labialized-velar initials kw- [kʷ] and khw- [kʰʷ] have been […]
- Vote starts: 00:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23.59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Support Option 1 (Similar-Looking Unicode Characters) [edit] Support Option 2 (Regular Letters with HTML or Other Mechanisms)  Support Prosfilaes (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)- Support. I agree with Mzajac. (Or at least, I agree with how I interpret his statements. He's voted "oppose", which suggests that my interpretation may not be correct!) —RuakhTALK 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Confusing, isn't it? Does respecting individual guidelines in the Web's universal standards represent our status quo, or is it something we have to explicitly vote for? Shall I start a 1,000+ votes for other individual sentences and paragraphs in HTML and Unicode, so we can approve or deny each one? This vote is based on misplaced assumptions, and so is fundamentally flawed. —Michael Z. 2012-03-23 15:26 z
- It may help to understand the background here, which is that a small number of editors have been using the modifier letters as an ad-hoc superscripting mechanism for a few years now, and the status quo has been not to argue with them too much. As for starting other votes — there are a few other ways that we deviate from standards (e.g., we make up our language codes; we use <dl><dd>...</dd></dl> for the text of citations), and if you want to change those, then yeah, they probably require votes. (I would most likely vote support in such votes, by the way. But I'd oppose doing it, at this late hour, without a vote.) And Doremítzwr used to do weird, nonstandard, not-quite-functional things to try to simulate the s-t and c-t ligatures in older books, though I think he's stopped doing that — Doremítzwr, can you confirm that? — so I don't think a vote is needed there. —RuakhTALK 16:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- You refer to the st and ct "belt" ligatures. You are correct that I no longer use ⟨ƈt⟩ for the ct "belt" ligature. There is a specific Unicode character for the st "belt" ligature in the Alphabetic Presentation Forms subset, namely ⟨st⟩, which I have always used to represent that ligature in texts. As for the ct "belt" ligature, I use {{ctlig}} to represent that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- (Which, by the way, is not to say that vote is needed for this. I had rather that the editors who disliked <sup> and <sub> overcome their distaste. But I don't oppose the vote a priori on those grounds, and since the vote has begun, I support this option.) —RuakhTALK 16:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Support the Status Quo (Lack of Regulation) [edit] Oppose  Oppose The notion that this vote does not affect numbers has the unfortunate implication that if option 2 passes, an entry like Ca²⁺ will have to use both Unicode superscripts and <sup> tags, as in Ca²+. I cannot support such a badly crafted vote. -- Liliana • 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) - That's a bizarre interpretation. The vote explicitly does not affect superscript numbers, so no matter which option passes (if any option passes), our handling of superscript numbers will be unaffected. Assuming our current consensus on how to handle them does not fall apart for other reasons, we will handle them a month from now the same way we handle them now. - -sche (discuss) 06:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but you forgot the cases where numbers and letters (or special characters, in this case) are mixed. By a strict interpretation, that would mean that depending on the outcome of the vote, letters would use <sup> while the numbers are unaffected per the motion and would remain as Unicode super/subscripts. This has a disastrous result for mathematical and chemical formulae. -- Liliana • 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UT
- Numbers' being unaffected would mean that anything can be done to them: and when they alongside <sup>'ed characters of course they'd be <sup>'ed also.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose None of the options equals "follow the HTML and Unicode standards." Any of them sets the very bad precedent of establishing specific regulations that contradict or supersede open Web standards in an open dictionary. Madness. —Michael Z. 2012-03-22 14:58 z
[edit] Abstain  Abstain. Per the oppose voters... my general inclination, as stated on the talk page, is to handle things by consensus without rigid votes, anyway... perhaps that is best, here. - -sche (discuss) 16:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Decision  | |
