Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote: > Sovereign countries are free to decree currency symbols, whatever > their motivation or the putative artistic or typographic merits of > the symbol in question. Not for Unicode to judge. > > The simple fact is, the usage scenario for currency symbols is such > that immediate availability as character code is required by a whole > country (and its partners in commerce). > > Kvetching doesn't make a difference, it just reflects badly - > especially if it comes from anyone whose country happens to have its > currency "covered".
Asmus, there's no "ugly American" motivation at work here. I don't mind one bit if Turkey wants a currency symbol, although I hope for their sake they are realistic about the benefits such a symbol will bring. I was specifically, and only, referring to a character proposal—any proposal—being dubbed "urgent" on the basis that a font hack has been identified. N3862 for the Indian rupee sign says: "A UCS codepoint assignment for this character is urgent. Already at least one font has been published which puts the character’s glyph at U+0060 GRAVE ACCENT." N4258 for the Turkish lira sign says: "A UCS codepoint assignment for this character is urgent. Already at least one font has been published which puts the character’s glyph at U+00A8 DIAERESIS." We will have to wait and see whether proponents of new characters in the future (not necessarily currency symbols) distribute their own ASCII or Latin-1 font hacks in an attempt to speed up the UTC and WG2 encoding processes. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell