Re: The Ruble sign has been approved

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-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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>>
>
> Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com
> <mailto: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 - 23:39:37 CST