> Perhaps someone could explain this more clearly:
>
> UNICODE
> The euro currency sign is in Unicode Version 2.0:
>
> Unicode number Glyph Name
> 20A0 CE EURO-CURRENCY SIGN
>
> The glyph "CE" (both characters are interlaced with the E lower)
> is *not* the euro glyph.
>
> So why does it say that it is? There is some serious mistake here;
> or is it a historical entry that just needs renaming now?
>
> The euro glyph is like a "E" with two horizontal
> bars in the middle. ^^^^^^^^^^ you must add this
> word
> in text
> descriptions.
>
> Correct. So a document must explain what CE is and why it is there,
> and why it is labelled "EURO-CURRENCY SIGN" when it is not.
>
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]
> The fact is that the entry is as described above. I do not know the
> exact historical aspects: the history coud not be too long as the
> euro is resent.
>
> The following position is proposed:
>
> Unicode number Glyph Name
> 007C | VERTICAL LINE
>
> This would appear to me as being a particularly dangerous and careless
> thing to do. A new glyph should _never_ replace something in this part
> of the table: it should go somewhere where it will affect as few
> people as possible, like the y-trema. With the greatest of respect to
> Jacques-Andre (who pointed out my own errors regarding this character
> some while back; and to the citizens of those French towns whose name
> incorprates the y-trema), I submit that the number of people affected
> by substituting a little-used code point is less than the number
> affected by substituting a more heavily-used one.
>
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]
> I modified the proposition to a *new* definition. The new version is
> at
> http://www.crpht.lu/~carrasco/winter/euro.html
>
> I will post it later.
>
> would not be available with the correct glyph: if a programmer in
> San
> Jose
> were requested to introduce the euro currency sign, he would
> probably
> consult
> the Unicode book and copy the (wrong) "CE" glyph.
>
> This is guaranteed unless the explanations are tightened up A LOT. At
> the moment they are probably grossly ambiguous to anyone outside the
> character-set field and need much much better explanation.
>
> Please let us not compound the error by picking a replacement location
> we will live to regret.
>
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]
>
> Indeed.
>
> DISCLAIMER
> This document represent only the views of the author.
>
> Me too :-)
>
> It's worth noting for our non-European colleagues that the majority of
> European citizens I have spoken to (and I have discussed this
> extensively with people from many countries) feel the new currency
> name is a serious mistake on the part of well-meaning and hard-working
> but ultimately grotesquely misdirected politicians and bureaucrats.
>
> Nobody wants the name "euro" and it carries entirely the wrong
> semantics, and the citizens were not consulted about it, but the
> damage has been done, and cannot easily be undone, so we're stuck with
> it. Let's just hope we can find a suitably derogatory nickname :-)
>
>
> [Carrasco Benitez Manuel]
> This is another field of discoussion. As long as I am concerned,
> the authorities of the European Union have decided that the name
> is euro and there is a glyph and it is like "E" with the horizontal
> bars. I just try to make it work. The political aspects of this
> should be discoused in another list.
>
> Regards
> Tomas
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT