Get over it. Please just get over it. It doesn't matter. It's a blort. There are many blorts. I've discovered some working with Unifon. I haven't exactly had much support from the UTC with what I've discovered. I've found the usual posturing about possible unifications with other scripts.
I went in saying, well, we could do this like Lisu, which none of you will like. And that was true eniough. So I did it the unification way as was agreeed one UTC, but then I get push-back about the encoding model and isn't the script dead and more of that. None of that helps me to a practical way to use the UCS to publish Unifon texts, in paper form or in eBook form. That's a whole hell of a lot more aggravating than a currency sign. At least to me. On 28 May 2012, at 01:29, Doug Ewell wrote: > Asmus Freytag wrote: > >> The typographers may not like that they won't be given the time to >> allow them to organically grow a design, but fonts are appearing and >> are using dubious encodings - thus the need for Unicode to act quickly >> - and decisively. > > This is perhaps one of the more annoying aspects of the recent "urgently > needed, drop everything" approach to encoding currency symbols. > > A nation decides to create a new currency symbol, OK, fine. It starts showing > up in hand-lettered signs and ledgers, good enough. No crisis yet. But as > soon as someone cranks out a Latin-1 font with the new glyph replacing a > little-used, but real, character such as U+00A8 DIAERESIS, and a keyboard > layout that makes it easy for a user to type the new font-hacked symbol, then > it becomes "urgent" for Unicode to encode the symbol and stop the spread of > code-point abuse. I believe the Turks learned well from the Indians on this > one. > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA > http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
