Message-Id: <199708090910.FAA28079@unix.asb.com> From: "Rob" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Richard Irving" <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 04:51:43 -0500 CC: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Trademarks (was something about abominations) Good question, but note some browsers other than NS that don't handle &trade, and some older ones that don't handle ©. As it is it'd be awfully nice to see either of them recognize — using <nobr>--</nobr> doesn't cut it, so to say. Older browsers are pretty significant since there are still in 1997 quite a lot of people getting pre-installed software packages or CD-ROMs with new computers that contain things like SPRY Mosaic (really NCSA Mosaic 1.? I think). Some pages have used simply "(tm)" or "<sup>TM</sup>". Considering everything is trademarked nowadays, it's better to put the usual 'all-encompassing X,Y, and Z are trademarks are A, B and C corporations' or even 'Trademarks of products mentioned above belong to their respective owners'. BTW, since there is a <link rel=Copyright ...> should there also be a <link rel=Trademark ...?> --Rob "Richard Irving" <email@example.com> wrote: > They're being used for the trademark symbol (tm) -- if they were to use > ™ (as suggested) the symbol would not show up in a Netscape browser > (all the way through 4.02). It would simply show the ™ characters. > I would say this qualifies as a Netscape abomination! > > So how would you suggest this problem be worked around, because I'm faced > with it myself.