home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: uk.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!cam-cl!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!rf
- From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
- Subject: Re: Symbol for pound sterling
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.113935.17249@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lelaps.cl.cam.ac.uk
- Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
- References: <C13IJG.nw@micrognosis.co.uk> <25902.9301201404@thor.cf.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:39:35 GMT
- Lines: 36
-
- In article <25902.9301201404@thor.cf.ac.uk>, wdrdjh@thor.cf.ac.uk (Dr D J Harvey 92) writes:
- |> In article <C13IJG.nw@micrognosis.co.uk> jharuni@micrognosis.co.uk writes:
- |> |A lot of people seem to use the symbol "#" (NUMBER) in place of the crossed
- |> |letter ell (STERLING) when refering to the British Pound Sterling.
- |> |Has this become some sort of de-facto standard ? I find it uncomfortable
- |> |to read "#10" as "ten pounds".
- |> |
- |>
- |> All depends on your display :- from what you say it sounds as if you
- |> have a US syandard, rather than a UK one, as your message displays on
- |> mine as "people seem to use the symbol "(insert crossed L)" in place of
- |> the crossed letter ell!!
- |>
- |> BAsically we are talking about symbol numer 35, which displays on US
- |> machines as a hash/number symbol, and on UK machines as a proper
- |> Sterling symbol - this being the only version of the symbol available in
- |> 7-bit ASCII. IF 8-bit ASCII were readily avaiable for the net, then
- |> perhaps people could then use the (newer) value of 156 for this symbol,
- |> as this value doesn't have international ambiguities.
-
- ASCII is a 7-bit American standard. ASCII never includes a code for
- the `Pound Sterling Symbol'. The UK specialisation of ISO 646 (of
- which ASCII is the USA specialisation) contains a PSS, as does ISO
- 8859-1, which is an 8-bit code which (as I recall) includes the USA
- specialisation of ISO 646 (i.e., ASCII) as its lower half.
-
- 8-bit ASCII doesn't mean anything. This is part of the reason it's
- not widely available on the net. Another part of the reason is the
- historical fact that the original implementation of the net was
- performed, using ASCII, in the USA. There are significant numbers of
- old news engines of various sorts out there, that carefully mask to 7
- bits. I believe that most modern software operates with 8 bits. Roll
- on Unicode/ISO 10646 news software!
- --
- Robin (Keep Radio 3 != Classic FM) Fairbairns rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
- U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QG, UK
-