Le 2013-12-12 à 13:42, Asmus Freytag <asm...@ix.netcom.com> a écrit :
> The Euro was the first currency symbol added which was presented to the world > as a logo. > In the context of encoding the character, the UTC and WG2 (quite correctly) > at the time made clear that what was being encoded was a generic character > code that encompasses all font designs and that use of the character code > would not guarantee an appearance matching the logo design. > > The bureaucrats were a bit hesitant at first, but very soon actual typefaces > appeared and it turned out to be no problem at all having the currency symbol > harmonize with the font. Same for iso-8859-15 which included the Euro. However, I don't remember if 8859-15 was done in parallel or after. Most likely after. Marc. > > There is no question that UTC is fully entitled to define the range of glyph > representations encompassed by a character code. For example for most letters > they encompass any traditional or decorative rendering, while for something > like the ESTIMATED symbol, it is understood that the intent is to encode a > rather specific depiction of a lower case 'e'. > > For currency symbols, the precedent established by long standing symbols like > the $ and confirmed for the euro is that a symbol shape harmonizing with the > font falls inside the glyph variation encompassed by the character code. Only > if that precedent were to be disregarded for some future symbol would it be > necessary for UTC to include "guidance". > > A./ > > On 12/12/2013 9:29 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: >> In my opinion, this is going too far for the UTC. Such guidance can only >> come from Russian authorities for the application of its law, where it is >> relevant to apply it. Even for the Euro, there's ample variations allowed in >> Unicode, that does not affect conformance, even if there may be further >> restrictions on them in specific contexts. >> >> We are out of scope of TUS, unless there's a clear standard coming from law >> or from a national standard body, defining a clear context of use where a >> more precise shape design would be normatively used (and should then be >> present in fonts in one of the implemented variants). >> >> >> 2013/12/12 William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10...@btinternet.com> >> Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote: >> >> > I’m already on it. >> >> Excellent. >> >> Would it be possible please for encoding to include specific official >> guidance, going back to a source with provenance, as to whether a glyph for >> the symbol in a serif font should or should not have serifs? >> >> William Overington >> >> 12 December 2013 >> >> >> >> >
