- From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:11:02 +0100
- 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 UTC