Hello
I am trying to figure out in which way to define
superscript letter (a-z) metrics ...
For super/subscript numerals I know it is best to define them as tabular (
http://fontfeed.com/archives/figuring-out-numerals/), but I don't know what the best definition would be for the superscript letters -
tabular (or monospaces, which is almost a non-possibility as the letters would have to be drawn in a way that would allow this) or proportional?
Also, are there any uses for
subscript letters (I haven't made them & I don't think I have to ... )?
Comments
I also see that you suggest I should also make subscript letters. Well that is no problem, I just create additional glyphs as components and move them vertically.
Thank you!
Some typographers do that, but I always used full-sized figures, as the type size for footnotes is so small that superior figures end up being way too tiny.
Besides, it’s extremely unlikely that one gets into double figures, and typographers can always tab to the text if they don’t like the alignment that proportional figures cause.
I believe most publishing styles now prescribe full-size figures for heading the notes themselves. Superscript is only used for the in-line reference.
And with tabular subscripts, then in a formula like C₆H₁₂O₆ (carbohydrate) you run the risk that the H₁₂ looks more like H₁ ₂O.
One will argue that these are specialized cases found mostly in academic publishing. But I ask: what is the purpose being served by tabular width for super/subscripts in general use that is worth sacrificing performance in complex typesetting?
If you have a copy of The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., you can see examples of the former in Tables 13.1 & 13.2, and you’ll find the guideline for the latter in §13.47.
Jure, looks like proportional-only is quite alright—although bucking this convention will create extra work for James :-)