RE: The Ruble sign has been approved

ISO/IEC 8859-15 was done in parallel (formally in SC2/WG3).

Sincerely, Erkki

Lähettäjä: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org]
Puolesta Marc Blanchet
Lähetetty: 13. joulukuuta 2013 00:00
Vastaanottaja: Asmus Freytag
Kopio: verdy_p_at_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 <asmusf_at_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_10009_at_btinternet.com>

Michael Everson <everson_at_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

 
Received on Thu Dec 12 2013 - 23:34:26 CST