|
DOC TYPE: | National Body Contribution
|
TITLE:
|
National Body Comments on SC 2 N 3089: Application
for Registration No 206, Supplementary set for Latin-7 alternative with
EURO SIGN
|
SOURCE:
|
National Bodies of Canada, UK and US |
PROJECT:
|
-- |
STATUS:
|
These comments are forwarded to the Registration Authority for consideration. |
ACTION ID:
|
FYI |
DUE DATE: | |
DISTRIBUTION: | P, O and L Members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2
WG Conveners, Secretariats ISO/IEC JTC 1 Secretariat ISO/IEC ITTF |
NO. OF PAGES:
|
2 |
ACCESS LEVEL:
|
Open |
WEB ISSUE #:
|
024 |
Canada does not agree that this registration should go ahead - with
the current identified sponsorship.
None of the countries currently using Latin-7 are part of the Euro
Zone countries. If there is a future requirement for these countries,
the corresponding national bodies who intend to make this G1 set as a
national requirement should be identified as sponsors. WG 3 cannot
be identified as the sponsor since there was no resolution of WG3 to that
effect.
----------------
Document: SC2 N 3089
The U.S. vote is to disapprove.
Comments:
It is not necessary since 8859-15 has been approved. This will
be too costly for vendors to implement and we see little commercial value
in this registration.
None of the countries using Latin-7 are part of the Euro Zone in the EMU. Source of this registration cannot be SC2/WG 3 -- at least one of the NBs using Latin-4 has to become the sponsor. Otherwise, the requirement for this G1 set registration is highly questionable.
These registration is simply an invitations to more 2022 mischief and interoperability problems with data that is *almost* like Latin-1, Latin-4, or Latin-7, except for a single character. In our view, this is a recapitulation of the ISO 646 national variant currency nonsense and should be completely eschewed in favor of full 10646 implementations to get EURO SIGN support.