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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to