


From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:01:49 +0100
Message-Id: <5DFB753C1329D1119DEC00805F15C342D8F2@WS015>
>>There is some kind of confussion.  In the book "The Unicode
>>Standard, Version 2.0" is the following:
>>      20A0    CE    EURO-CURRENCY SIGN
>>in the glyph CE the characters are interlaced and the E is lower.
>>to http://europa.eu.int/euro.html).
>The Unicode Technical Committee and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 and the
>Commission disagree with you. EURO-CURRENCY SIGN is ECU and EURO SIGN

So we would have:

 20A0          EURO-CURRENCY SIGN              for the ECU
 20AC         EURO SIGN                                  for the EURO

Perfect for confussion.

>They are different currencies. Implementors may have used U+20A0 for
>then their data will be compromised if we reuse that position for a
>different currency.

Could somebody find *one* implementor that is using 20A0 for the ECU ?
If such an implementor exist, how did he manage to guess that 20A0
is the ECU ?

>The Commission supports U+20AC, whatever is written down at that site.


is *the* official line of the Commission.

>>>Your proposal to modify ASCII is not acceptable to anyone.
>>Formally and following Larry posting, I propose *defining a new*
>>character set.  Not *re-defining* ASCII.  User will chose whatever
>>character set they wish.  I assume that the one that need the EURO in
>>and 8 bits will choose the new one.  I belive this is the easiest and
>>cheapest way to  do it.
>If the Commission supports a 7-bit registration in ISO 2375, it would
>quite simple to forward them such a registration. Kenneth Thompson in
>DGIII/B is the contact person we have with the Commission on these

Note taken.

>>>Your proposal to replace the VERTICAL BAR in Latin 1 will have no
>>>support from anyone anywhere, I think. However, a new part of 8859
>>>has been proposed in SC2/WG3 which will contain the EURO SIGN in
>>>the position of the PLUS-MINUS sign or the CURRENCY SIGN (it seems to
>>>controversial and hopefully will be resolved by the current ballot
>>>on the CD.
>>This not solve the 7 bits problem.
>7-bit environments do not use 8859. You will have to have a mapping
>to Latin 0, just as you will have to have a mapping table for 10646.

My proposition has formally two charsets: one for 7 bits and one for 8

>>>I forgot to mention that the TC304 Euro Workshop did agree that an
>>>&EUR; instead of &euro; as this is shorter and mnemonic to the
>>>currency code.
>>I do not mind one way or another.  I take note and I if there is no
>>major negative feedback, I will change the document accordingly.
>The feedback has been that &euro; is best.

&EUR; or &euro;  ?

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 1997 05:02:11 GMT
