On 12/12/2013 9:32 PM, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote:
ISO/IEC 8859-15 was done in parallel (formally in SC2/WG3).
As many experts from WG3 took part in WG2 meetings a common stance is
not surprising and, instead, deliberate.
A./
Sincerely, Erkki
*Lähettäjä:*unicode-bou...@unicode.org
[mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] *Puolesta *Marc Blanchet
*Lähetetty:* 13. joulukuuta 2013 00:00
*Vastaanottaja:* Asmus Freytag
*Kopio:* verd...@wanadoo.fr; William_J_G Overington; Michael Everson;
unicode Unicode Discussion
*Aihe:* Re: The Ruble sign has been approved
Le 2013-12-12 à 13:42, Asmus Freytag <asm...@ix.netcom.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:wjgo_10...@btinternet.com>>
Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com
<mailto: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
