W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 1997

RE: Euro currency sign

From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:11:02 +0100
Message-Id: <5DFB753C1329D1119DEC00805F15C342D8DD@WS015>
To: "'Peter Flynn'" <pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie>
Cc: www-international@w3.org, www-html@w3.org, unicode@unicode.org, Patrice.HUSSON@bxl.dg13.cec.be
> Perhaps someone could explain this more clearly:
> 
>    UNICODE
>    The euro currency sign is in Unicode Version 2.0:
> 
>        Unicode number       Glyph        Name
>        20A0                        CE           EURO-CURRENCY SIGN
> 
>    The glyph "CE" (both characters are interlaced with the E lower)
>    is *not* the euro glyph.  
> 
> So why does it say that it is? There is some serious mistake here;
> or is it a historical entry that just needs renaming now?
> 
>    The euro glyph is like a "E" with two horizontal
>    bars in the middle.                   ^^^^^^^^^^ you must add this
> word
>                                                     in text
> descriptions.
> 
> Correct. So a document must explain what CE is and why it is there,
> and why it is labelled "EURO-CURRENCY SIGN" when it is not.
> 
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]  
> The fact is that the entry is as described above.  I do not know the
> exact historical aspects: the history coud not be too long as the
> euro is resent.
> 
>    The following position is proposed:
> 
>        Unicode number       Glyph        Name
>        007C                       |               VERTICAL LINE
> 
> This would appear to me as being a particularly dangerous and careless
> thing to do. A new glyph should _never_ replace something in this part
> of the table: it should go somewhere where it will affect as few
> people as possible, like the y-trema. With the greatest of respect to
> Jacques-Andre (who pointed out my own errors regarding this character
> some while back; and to the citizens of those French towns whose name
> incorprates the y-trema), I submit that the number of people affected
> by substituting a little-used code point is less than the number
> affected by substituting a more heavily-used one.
> 
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]  
> I modified the proposition to a *new* definition.  The new version is
> at
>  http://www.crpht.lu/~carrasco/winter/euro.html
> 
> I will post it later.
> 
>    would not be available with the correct glyph: if a programmer in
> San
>    Jose
>    were requested to introduce the euro currency sign, he would
> probably
>    consult
>    the Unicode book and copy the (wrong) "CE" glyph.
> 
> This is guaranteed unless the explanations are tightened up A LOT. At
> the moment they are probably grossly ambiguous to anyone outside the
> character-set field and need much much better explanation.
> 
> Please let us not compound the error by picking a replacement location
> we will live to regret.
> 
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]  
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>    DISCLAIMER
>    This document represent only the views of the author.
> 
> Me too :-)
> 
> It's worth noting for our non-European colleagues that the majority of
> European citizens I have spoken to (and I have discussed this
> extensively with people from many countries) feel the new currency
> name is a serious mistake on the part of well-meaning and hard-working
> but ultimately grotesquely misdirected politicians and bureaucrats.
> 
> Nobody wants the name "euro" and it carries entirely the wrong
> semantics, and the citizens were not consulted about it, but the
> damage has been done, and cannot easily be undone, so we're stuck with
> it. Let's just hope we can find a suitably derogatory nickname :-)
> 
> 
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]  
> This is another field of discoussion.  As long as I am concerned,
> the authorities of the European Union have decided that the name
> is euro and there is a glyph and it is like "E" with the horizontal
> bars.  I just try to make it work.  The political aspects of this
> should be discoused in another list.
> 
> Regards
> Tomas
> 
Received on Monday, 20 October 1997 05:12:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:47 GMT