W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2000

Re: SM

From: <Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:19:09 +0300 (EET DST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.10005040906400.23405-100000@gamma.hut.fi>
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Joe Kaczmarek wrote:

> &#153; may not be valid

It is valid, but it is undefined. Anything may happen,
and often will.

> And making sure that people in my audience see "TM" and not "&trade;" is more
> important to me.

If it is important to you to be sure that people see an indication
of something being a trademark, then use the two letters "TM",
optionally accompanied with a note about its meaning in legend
(you could make "TM" a link to such a note). Whether you put
parentheses and/or SUP markup is partly a matter of taste, partly
a matter of considering the context.

If you use &#153;, then a considerable number of people will see
a blank, or something more weird. See
http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/www/windows-chars.html

Please note that this discussion is about authoring practices
(and workarounds), not about the future development of HTML, so
please take it elsewhere if you wish to continue. I just thought
I need to point out that this _has_ been discussed at length (e.g.
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html), and nothing new has
emerged here.

It would have been better if numeric character references and
entity references for characters had been introduced into HTML so that an
author could specify a surrogate for situations where they are
not recognized (so that one could have said, in effect, "dear
browser, if you don't know what "&trade;" is, please use
<sup>TM</sup> instead". But such a decision should have been made
in the very beginning; it's too late now.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2000 02:19:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT