The statement below (msg 1) is both true and reasonable. As a EC official I plainly and fully support it.
The EC backs, promotes and today uses broadly Unicode (and ISO 10646). However we firmly advocate the need of
including the euro into 8-bit character sets (most of them and not only the 8859/1/7...) and whishes that standardizers
take this into account for the benefit of both the users and the vendors.
Follows the message which answers to a previous question by a participant in the list (see below message 0)
> Vendors are adding the sign to their private codes because customers need it.
> If > customers need it it should also be added to the equivalent 8 bit standards
> to > facilitate those who use standard 8 bit codesets in their systems. Also, just
> because you are not an EU member (or potential member) doesn't mean you will
> not need to input/display and print the Euro. The Euro symbol should probably be
> added to all Latin parts to facilitate those in the 8 bit world who wish to
> use it. Everyone, of course, should move to Unicode and we'd have none of this.
> > (easier said than done I know).
> > > Hm, what about Latin-2? I think Euro should be included in Latin-2 most
> > definetely, right? ***---> RIGHT RGHT RIGHT !
Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Uml-Sequence: 5192 (1998-04-17 10:06:18 GMT)
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrej Brodnik) > To: Unicode List <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 03:06:15 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: Re: Euro in 8859 character sets
From: Jonathan Rosenne <firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 23:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Euro in 8859 character sets
I understand why the Euro sign is wanted in Latin-1, Latin-0 and Greek, but I am not certain it is needed in other parts, such as Cyrillic, Arabic and Hebrew. I have no objection to vendors adding the sign to their private codes. The question is should it be added to the standards?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:40 EDT