While referencing other fonts to determine the character set for font I'm developing, I came across two characters without unicodes labeled "a.superior" and "o.superior" which are identical to ordfeminine (00AA) and ordmasculine (00BA). I was wondering what would be the reasoning behind having these glyphs in a font?
This is my first post, and I'm in the process of launching a new foundry, so any feedback is greatly appreciated.
0
Comments
I've heard contradictory feedback on this, and suspect there may also be differences between regional preferences, e.g. between Portugal and Brazil.
My tendency is to make the two ordinal character glyphs with the underscore, on the basis that if someone really wants to display ordinals without the underscore then they can use the superscript characters or <sups> feature. But perhaps I should also be mapping the latter as Stylistic Set variants of the ordinal characters?
I have wondered as much myself. Igor might have insight.
If the different preferences are strong enough, distinct, and consistent, then presumably one could localize with language tags.
I tend to apply the same logic as you regarding the default ordinals. I suppose a sset mapping wouldn’t be a bad idea, but I wonder how often a user would take the trouble to seek it out.
I Don't have studied the subject in depth, but as a native of the Portuguese language I say that imagine the ordinals smaller than the superscript characters(not just underlined). Which does not mean much.