On Jan 16, 2005, at 2:11 AM, Nicholas Bodley wrote:

> This surely does seem to be getting into the matter of Unicode's
> definitions, versus rendering details independent of Unicode. At the
> moment, I'm thinking that including super and sub numerals was a
> "concession" or a convenience that does not strictly follow Unicode's
> primary intent; might well be wrong on that.
>
>

You are quite correct. The super- and subscript forms included in
Unicode are really only there for compatibility with earlier standards
and are insufficient for more than the simplest real-world use.