- From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie>
- Date: 19 Oct 1997 01:01:21 +0100
- To: manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org
- 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. 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. 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. 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 :-) ///Peter
Received on Saturday, 18 October 1997 20:01:27 UTC