. . .
>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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT