Hi Ian: I don’t know, but I don’t recall seeing a category in the Character Viewer that provides that feature. I’m not at my computer now, so I can’t check it. I know that MS Word provides that feature but that might just be a Word feature, not an ASCII character. As far as I know, Character Viewer only supports ASCII characters. My advice is to open Character Viewer and search for it. I hope that’s of some help.
Apparently, the addition of “st”, “nd”, and “rd” to the ordinal numbers actually is provided in the ASCII character library, but you need to have a keyboard that provides access to that feature. According to the link above, it requires a “NumLock” key and an “Alt” key. If your keyboard doesn’t have those keys (for example, an onscreen keyboard), you might not have access to those characters. However, the article linked above does provide the ASCII codes for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, as well as some workarounds for mobile devices.
Much appreciated... I just wish the Substack editor allowed to do this type of stuff in HTML with <sup> and other things like that. Also, it still isn't possible to use LaTeX (math equations) inline; but at least it works for displayed equations.
Yeah…at first I rejoiced when I saw that LaTeX was included, but the joy was short-lived when I saw how it’s implemented.
I must admit that those who are responsible for determining what features are included in the Substack composers are either breathtakingly shameless or abysmally ignorant of their own cluelessness about the degree to which the information in a message is dependent on its structure and formatting. Evidently they either don’t know or don’t care that there are some concepts that cannot be communicated in plain or minimally formatted text.
It appears to be a vestige of the same towering stupidity that stubbornly resisted the addition of HTML to email composers. I don’t know whether you were aware of that idiocy when it was rampant. The mantra of that religion was, “If you can’t say it in plain text, it doesn’t need to be said.” I was never able to understand how otherwise intelligent people could believe such nonsense.
Anyhow, the prime demonstration of that ignorance is evident right here in this plain-text-only Comments composer. Utterly barbaric.
Precisely... I actually prefer to write comments on someone's note (if they restacked their own post) because there's some possibility allowed for formatting. Also, even more strange, I can go back and edit my comment (even after a long time) but here in the comments basement of posts there's absolutely no flexibility.
Wondering if it's possible to get more general cases to work, as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, with "st" or "nd" or "rd" as superscripts...
Hi Ian: I don’t know, but I don’t recall seeing a category in the Character Viewer that provides that feature. I’m not at my computer now, so I can’t check it. I know that MS Word provides that feature but that might just be a Word feature, not an ASCII character. As far as I know, Character Viewer only supports ASCII characters. My advice is to open Character Viewer and search for it. I hope that’s of some help.
Update: I found this link: https://blinksandbuttons.net/how-do-you-type-1st-2nd-3rd-on-keyboard/
Apparently, the addition of “st”, “nd”, and “rd” to the ordinal numbers actually is provided in the ASCII character library, but you need to have a keyboard that provides access to that feature. According to the link above, it requires a “NumLock” key and an “Alt” key. If your keyboard doesn’t have those keys (for example, an onscreen keyboard), you might not have access to those characters. However, the article linked above does provide the ASCII codes for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, as well as some workarounds for mobile devices.
Much appreciated... I just wish the Substack editor allowed to do this type of stuff in HTML with <sup> and other things like that. Also, it still isn't possible to use LaTeX (math equations) inline; but at least it works for displayed equations.
Yeah…at first I rejoiced when I saw that LaTeX was included, but the joy was short-lived when I saw how it’s implemented.
I must admit that those who are responsible for determining what features are included in the Substack composers are either breathtakingly shameless or abysmally ignorant of their own cluelessness about the degree to which the information in a message is dependent on its structure and formatting. Evidently they either don’t know or don’t care that there are some concepts that cannot be communicated in plain or minimally formatted text.
It appears to be a vestige of the same towering stupidity that stubbornly resisted the addition of HTML to email composers. I don’t know whether you were aware of that idiocy when it was rampant. The mantra of that religion was, “If you can’t say it in plain text, it doesn’t need to be said.” I was never able to understand how otherwise intelligent people could believe such nonsense.
Anyhow, the prime demonstration of that ignorance is evident right here in this plain-text-only Comments composer. Utterly barbaric.
Precisely... I actually prefer to write comments on someone's note (if they restacked their own post) because there's some possibility allowed for formatting. Also, even more strange, I can go back and edit my comment (even after a long time) but here in the comments basement of posts there's absolutely no flexibility.
For Windows:
Superscript: Ctrl + .
Subscript: Ctrl + Shift + .
Thanks for posting this!
Excellent tip, and completely new to me. I just used it to add footnotes to a Substack post. Thank you!! 🙏😊