. . .
>The position of the Unicode Consortium is that U+20A0 is inappropriate to
>use for the Euro (i.e., it has a different meaning). It isn't a glyph
>issue; we consider them two different symbols.
. . .
>>Question: does position 20A0 for the ECU or EURO ?
>Neither. It's for "an undefined, future pan-European currency." When
>the Euro comes into existence, it won't be "undefined," and it won't be
>"future," hence U+20A0 isn't appropriate to use for it.
. . .
I understand that the Consortium has made this decision,
and I have no intention to fight it, but am I the only one
who feels lost reading this logic? It sounds like 20A0
was intended as a place-holder for a pan-European currency.
Now the Euro has been defined as a pan-European currency.
It seems strange to reserve something undefined for future
use, but then not use it because the now-present, defined
item isn't "undefined" or "future" anymore. How could you
ever use this slot?
The argument that the ECU and Euro are different currencies
seems more compelling.
-----------------------
Sandra Martin O'Donnell
odonnell@zk3.dec.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT