On 22 May 2012, at 06:13, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Before this discussion deep ends.
>
> There is an early precedent, going back to the Euro sign, of Unicode adding a new character instead of "repurposing" any existing character that may seem to be unused.
>
> The principle there is, that until a particular currency gets actually created (or a specific symbol is officially adopted for an existing currency) whatever character already exists in Unicode is for "something else". It may be unclear precisely what it is to be used for, but it is clear that it is *not* to be used for the new symbol.
>
> So, there's absolutely no point in discussing whether or not some glyphs should change - that's flat out.
I would not agree about that in terms of a future re-use of the Drachma sign. The glyph we have is absurd, based on a Wingding, no less!
> The identity of symbols, and that includes currency symbols, is largely defined by appearance, much more so, than is the case for letter shapes. Changing "glyphs" for a symbol really means changing its *identity*, and that goes against the character code stability policy in a rather direct way.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Tue May 22 2012 - 04:24:17 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue May 22 2012 - 04:24:22 CDT