Trademarks (was something about abominations)

Rob (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Sat, 9 Aug 1997 04:51:43 -0500


Message-Id: <199708090910.FAA28079@unix.asb.com>
From: "Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
To: "Richard Irving" <ricci@azstarnet.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 04:51:43 -0500
CC: www-html@w3.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 &copy.  As it is it'd 
be awfully nice to see either of them recognize &mdash; 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" <ricci@azstarnet.com> wrote:

>  They're being used for the trademark symbol (tm) -- if they were to use
> &trade; (as suggested) the symbol would not show up in a Netscape browser
> (all the way through 4.02).   It would simply show the &trade; 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.