From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2008 - 12:10:01 CST
On 3/27/2008 4:56 AM, Erkki I. Kolehmainen wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
>
>>> Michael, we most certainly don't want to repeat the mess with the Euro
>>> Currency Sign.
>>>
>> That is entirely unrelated to this, however. Here we are seeing a
>> grass-roots usage of a RUBLE SIGN.
>>
>> It would be problematic were the Central Bank of Russia (Central'nyj
>> bank Rossijskoj Federacii) to choose a different design from what
>> people are actually using.
>>
That's surely irrelevant. Both usages would have to be covered. Reminds
me of how the German authorities for decades insisted that telephone was
called "Fernsprecher" (far speaker) when the populace simply and
universally used "Telefon". Dictionaries had to carry both terms.
>> But the EURO-CURRENCY SIGN is a different problem entirely.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>>
>
> My point is that none of us control the Central Bank of Russia.
>
If they choose differently now or later (or decide not to adapt a currency symbol), we'd have the same problem.
If symbols change, different characters need to be encoded. Currency
symbols *will* change over time. Michael's criterion seems to be
demonstrated usage. I find that criterion acceptable. As long as the
criterion is met by evidence, of course.
What's not acceptable is to cover fleeting usage(s) from a brief period
where many designs are contemplated and battling for acceptance. Unicode
should not be a repository of the micro-history of the development of
signs and symbols, faithfully cataloging all failed attempts.
The burden of proof is simply adjusted to incorporate evidence that
'de-facto' use is widespread and somewhat persistent.
> There were people who must have believed in the Euro Currency Sign at the time when it was introduced.
>
Yes, some American character set designers at Xerox (or their ultimate
sources). That was a different case, because the character came in as
part of a large set that needed to be covered, warts and all, with
limited research into actual usage for each character. Those were the
very early days, before Unicode 1.0 even. Different rules applied.
(Rules changed as people learned the effect of earlier approaches).
A./
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2008 - 12:12:13 CST