From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2008 - 13:01:20 CST
> In this context, I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea if this
> were added to Amd 5, and if UTC could agree on a stable code point
> -- relationship to future Unicode versions being a separate question.
O.k. Understood that nobody is advocating a quick turnaround on
a Unicode version just for this currency symbol.
> That way, if there are users (whether they're MS's or somebody
> else's customers) that suddenly insist that they need support
> for this, we won't face a chaotic firedrill in which we need to
> rush something in from scratch while also having to convince
> people not to go off inventing private, ad hoc solutions.
The thing is, for that defensive purpose, I don't see a practical
difference that requires putting the character into Amd 5,
where it will have no technical ballot at all at this point,
particularly in advance of any actual demonstration yet
that meet's Erkki's criteria.
All you need is a WG2 resolution to approve the character,
and by normal process it would end up in Amd 6 and get
its technical ballots. And the UTC would turn around anyway
in May and, via the consent docket, approve the same
character and code point.
You get exactly the same effect, without bending the process
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 25 2008 - 13:04:28 CST