Positioning of sups, subs, ordn and sinf

mauro sacchetto

Here is yet another question I am raising after noticing inconsistencies in the settings of certain fonts.

It concerns the positioning of sups, subs, ordn, and sinf - sets of glyphs that, in reality, most fonts do not include.

Now, considering a single case — a font that contains all of them, namely EB Garamond — the situation is as follows (though, as I noted earlier, other fonts contradict this):

1) they all share the same size;

2) sups are positioned exactly at the height of numerators;

3) subs are positioned slightly lower than denominators;

4) ordn are positioned just slightly higher than numerators;

5)`sinf are positioned somewhat higher than denominators.

Setting aside the exact positioning, are these appropriate choices, and are there "objective" criteria involved? For instance, what is the reason for placing ordn slightly higher than numerators?

Thank you

SCarewe

You might want to read this very recent topic:
https://typedrawers.com/discussion/comment/72363

mauro sacchetto

Thanks for the reference—illuminating in some respects, while leaving room for different solutions in others.

Here, then, is a list of the issues that still seem unresolved or unclear to me:

1) superscripts: above (~ halfway up) the x-height, but symmetrical to superscripts?

2) subscripts: half above and half below the baseline (straddling it), or resting on the baseline?

3) ordinals: not covered in that thread. At the same height as superscripts and numerators, or slightly higher to distinguish them (like in EB Garamond)?

4) scientific inferiors: obsolete. Can they be left at the same height as subscripts, simply for the sake of completeness?

5) denominators: resting on the baseline (or are they too similar to old-style numerals?) -and thus identical to subscripts?