2012-05-29 20:19, William_J_G Overington wrote:
If it were not done and, as a result of inconsistent encodings for a particular
currency symbol in documents, at some future time there were to be chaos
somewhere because a data file had been sent from one bank to another bank and
the two banks were using incompatible encodings for a particular currency
symbol, then it would not be a small technicality, yet perhaps the first item
on the television news bulletin.
I surely hope that no bank that I use transmits data to another bank
using currency symbols. In interbanking processes, internationalized
currency codes are the only acceptable way.
Well, I feel that it is entirely proportionate to regard encoding a new
currency symbol as an urgent question.
It’s no more urgent than encoding a new phonetic or mathematical symbol
or hieroglyph. You still have to allow ten years or so for delivery
(i.e., for everything needed to make the symbol *reasonably* safe to use
in information interchange and processing).
It sets a questionable precedent.
Well, maybe a precedent for currency symbols, yet not for other symbols, such
as those that I have designed.
Well, this is about political pressures that are allowed to affect
procedures and processes. Surely the precedent means that if you have a
very large company or an important government, you can have your
favorite symbol introduced on a fast-track lane and bypassing normal
critical review.
Yucca
