Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote: >> As David pointed out, currency symbols really aren’t an analogy to >> anything else. They are never built from combining characters, and >> are never decomposable to them. This has nothing really to do with >> TTS or pronunciation. One person in the Ubuntu thread mentioned that, >> but that is not the primary reason. > > Why is that?
Why are currency symbols not decomposable to combining characters, or equivalently, composable from them? Well, I (rather famously) don't speak for UTC or WG2, and for all I know, the official thinking on this has changed. But the impression I got from 20 years following the Unicode Standard was that a currency symbol such as $ is fundamentally different from a capital S with a combining vertical line, even if that was the original derivation of the symbol a few centuries ago. Likewise, even if the euro sign € was designed as a stylized E with an equals-sign overlay symbolizing equality, or something, that is no longer its essential nature as a character. By contrast, an A with an acute accent is, and will always be, an A with an acute accent, regardless of whether it is encoded as a precomposed character or as a combining sequence, or whether it is perceived as a unitary letter in any language's orthography. In particular with regard to the bitcoin hack^H^H^H^Hworkaround, U+20E6 COMBINING DOUBLE VERTICAL STROKE OVERLAY appears to have been encoded for a specific math purpose, and not meant to be applied to just any arbitrary base character on the basis of its appearance. (There was also a corollary principle that characters should be used for what they are meant to be, not just because the glyph "looks right.") As I said, YMMV, and you are way better off checking with a real UTC or WG2 member or even writing a proposal. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸 _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
