From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 19 2010 - 14:38:05 CDT
Doug Ewell said:
> Considering the impressive amount of experience that Asmus has with the
> UTC/WG2 encoding process, if he feels sufficiently confident that
> vendors are safe in pre-implementing U+20B9, I'm in no position to say
> otherwise. But it does violate conformance requirement C3.
Actually, if the UTC decided to proceed posthaste on this, it
would not. The UTC can, in principle, add a character to the
Unicode Standard by a single vote if the matter is urgent
enough, and it could do so quite quickly, given that the August
meeting is only a few weeks away.
The difficulty would not be in formal conformance at that point, but
A. Marshalling all the details through a release of
data files including it.
B. Dealing with all the documentary and procedural difficulties
of having a one-character temporary desynch from officially
approved 10646 amendments, until the point at which the two
standards could be formally resynched. (Which would be a virtual
certainty in a case like this currency sign.)
> Strange that both the Indian rupee and the concept of currency symbols
> have existed for so long, with comparatively little drama over the lack
> of a unique currency symbol for the Indian rupee, but now that one has
> been defined, it's worth violating standards to implement it as fast as
It isn't at all strange, given the nature of the issue.
It may be unfortunate, and haste in this case will undoubtedly
lead to cursing later (although probably not by the same people
urging the most haste), but it isn't strange.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 19 2010 - 14:40:20 CDT