- From: <Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 09:19:09 +0300 (EET DST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Joe Kaczmarek wrote: > ™ 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 "™" 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 ™, 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 "™" 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 UTC