Re: The Ruble sign has been approved

The Euro was the first currency symbol added which was presented to the
world as a logo.
In the context of encoding the character, the UTC and WG2 (quite
correctly) at the time made clear that what was being encoded was a
generic character code that encompasses all font designs and that use of
the character code would not guarantee an appearance matching the logo
design.

The bureaucrats were a bit hesitant at first, but very soon actual
typefaces appeared and it turned out to be no problem at all having the
currency symbol harmonize with the font.

There is no question that UTC is fully entitled to define the range of
glyph representations encompassed by a character code. For example for
most letters they encompass any traditional or decorative rendering,
while for something like the ESTIMATED symbol, it is understood that the
intent is to encode a rather specific depiction of a lower case 'e'.

For currency symbols, the precedent established by long standing symbols
like the $ and confirmed for the euro is that a symbol shape harmonizing
with the font falls inside the glyph variation encompassed by the
character code. Only if that precedent were to be disregarded for some
future symbol would it be necessary for UTC to include "guidance".

A./

On 12/12/2013 9:29 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> In my opinion, this is going too far for the UTC. Such guidance can
> only come from Russian authorities for the application of its law,
> where it is relevant to apply it. Even for the Euro, there's ample
> variations allowed in Unicode, that does not affect conformance, even
> if there may be further restrictions on them in specific contexts.
>
> We are out of scope of TUS, unless there's a clear standard coming
> from law or from a national standard body, defining a clear context of
> use where a more precise shape design would be normatively used (and
> should then be present in fonts in one of the implemented variants).
>
>
> 2013/12/12 William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com
> <mailto:wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com>>
>
> Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com
> <mailto:everson_at_evertype.com>> wrote:
>
> > I’m already on it.
>
> Excellent.
>
> Would it be possible please for encoding to include specific
> official guidance, going back to a source with provenance, as to
> whether a glyph for the symbol in a serif font should or should
> not have serifs?
>
> William Overington
>
> 12 December 2013
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 12 2013 - 12:44:54 CST