From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 10 2009 - 18:00:46 CST
------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kenneth Whistler <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: India seeks Rupee status symbol
> On 10 Mar 2009, at 22:57, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > BTW, this discussion is recapitulating positions taken
> > a dozen years ago, back in late 1996 and early 1997, when
> > we were debating the addition of what became U+20AC EURO SIGN.
> > Some folks back then wanted to just change the glyph
> > of the existing U+20A0 EURO-CURRENCY SIGN -- and we had
> > to push up FAQs for awhile after Unicode 2.1 came out
> > emphasizing that the EURO SIGN was U+20AC and *NOT*
> > U+20A0. Fortunately, the right decisions were taken back
> > then, and things eventually sorted themselves out correctly.
> Um, No, because the EURO-CURRENCY SIGN actually pointed to a
> *different* currency than the EURO SIGN did.
Um, Yes, because not everybody understood that at the time,
and there *were* proposals to simply change the glyph
of U+20A0 for the newly designed euro sign.
I didn't say that *you* wanted to do that, or that
another currency wasn't involved (actually a currency
By the way, the most telling argument against changing the
glyph of U+20A8 RUPEE SIGN is precisely that it is being
used to represent *other* currencies besides the Indian
rupee. So if the Indian government invents a new symbol,
it cannot just drag along the symbol for other currencies from other
countries with it.
So paraphrasing you, U+20A8 actually points to *different*
currencies than just the Indian rupee.
------------- End Forwarded Message -------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 10 2009 - 18:02:23 CST