From: Erkki I Kolehmainen (eik@iki.fi)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2010 - 05:22:49 CDT
Michael,
I should have thought that the Indian rupee issue is important enough to
warrant a proposal of its own instead of it being muffled by a totally
unrelated and highly questionable request for a glyph change. That way the
crisp proposal could also have been forwarded to all relevant parties
without bringing into their special attention a past instance where the
homework (on a currency symbol!) had not been done properly. I suspect that
you combined them for the express purpose of possibly getting the drachma
issue for discussion in a more positive connection.
Sincerely, Erkki
-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
Puolesta Michael Everson
Lähetetty: 19. heinäkuuta 2010 11:10
Vastaanottaja: unicode List
Aihe: Re: Indian Rupee Sign (U+20B9) proposal
On 19 Jul 2010, at 08:22, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote:
> Incidentally, I would have preferred to have the two proposals (in both
WG2 N3862 and L2/10-249) separated.
Why?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 19 2010 - 05:26:10 CDT