On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:44:06 -0500, Jelks Cabaniss
<jelkscabaniss@...> wrote:

> "i18n@..." wrote:

[nb (I think!)]

>>> and subs and sups are quite easy to do.
>
>> Web pages I am building for now on do not use html - they use xhtml
>> and css, and the tags you are thinking about are of little if any
>> use - they are deprecated...

> Au contraire. `<sup>` and `<sub>` are *not* deprecated in XHTML,
> [spirited defense follows!]

Barry might have been thinking of the [_] and [_{digits}] markup tags.

However, I think they are a lot less intrusive than <sub>, etc. They also
are a lot easier to type! I'm not looking to create text that can be
processed or rendered (beyond text-only capability), only trying to find
the most concise way to avoid near-barbarisims such as "H2O". (I'm an old
coot/fogy, and have seen properly subscripted chemical formulae all my
life. I also, in general, dislike ambiguity.

(Some symbolically-expressed chemical reactions might produce two
molecules of water from the given starting materials, leading to "2H_2O".
If that's written as "2H2O", you need too much contextual knowledge to
make sense of such a formula. (Formula? I think so.))) <-- Still hoping
to create a sentence ending with five or more non-alphanumeric characters,
without contriving or being unmerciful. :)

Thanks, Jelks!

--
Nicholas Bodley /*|*\ Waltham, Mass. (Not "MA")
Lack of decency about New Orleans' future:
<http://tinyurl.com/8eqx5> (politics, too)
That should redirect to an article by Mike Tidwell.