From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 07 2009 - 08:20:07 CST
Erkki I. Kolehmainen <eik at iki dot fi> wrote:
> The EURO SIGN was not at all undisputed at the time when it was
> introduced to the standardization process, since a lot of purist
> techies felt that the currency codes would be all that's needed in
> this day and age.
Point taken. I thought the ISO 4217-only devotees were out of touch
with real-world users then, and I think that now, but it was incorrect
to say that everyone agreed about the euro sign.
> I don't think that anyone is or has been or should be in the godly
> position to tell him/herself or anyone else that such-and-so character
> or symbol is something that Unicode would or would not consider
> encoding. Everything is up in the air now (as it has always been).
"Godly position" is completely unfair. After 10 years of hearing UTC
members saying on the public list that Unicode would definitely consider
encoding this and would definitely not consider encoding that, there is
a natural human tendency not only to believe the statements, but to try
to figure out patterns, so that "a whole new world doesn't open up to us
every time we blink."
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 07 2009 - 08:23:01 CST