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/
