Re: Trademarks (was something about abominations)

Marc A. Duncan (maduncan@skipjack.bluecrab.org)
Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:04:55 -0400


Message-Id: <199708091506.LAA16745@skipjack.bluecrab.org>
From: "Marc A. Duncan" <maduncan@skipjack.bluecrab.org>
To: "Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>, "Richard Irving" <ricci@azstarnet.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 11:04:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Trademarks (was something about abominations)

----------
> From: Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
> To: Richard Irving <ricci@azstarnet.com>
> Cc: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Trademarks (was something about abominations)
> Date: Saturday, August 09, 1997 5:51 AM
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, since there is a <link rel=Copyright ...> should there also be a 
> <link rel=Trademark ...?> 
> 

Seems like a logical idea to me.  Is there any reason there shouldn't?

Marc A. Duncan
M&A Duncan 



> 
> --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.
>  
>