From ivanpan3 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 14 21:20:54 2024
From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 04:20:54 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
Message-ID: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>

The registered sign (?, U+00AE) is already shown in superscript in some
typefaces and on the baseline in others. The discrepancy is annoying
because changing the typeface can cause it to appear either too small or
too large. In particular, I see that it is set without superscript
formatting in ?Unicode?? on https://unicode.org/main.html even though the
Arial font shows it on the baseline, and simply concatenating the circle in
this fashion seems wrong to me (other opinions?).

How about standardizing the position? In the (non-normative) reference
glyph, the circle is on the baseline and I would accept that; while the
symbol is often used in superscript in body text (and also in subscript in
logos), the circled R is by itself an alternative to ?Registered in U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office? or ?Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.?. In principle,
I can also imagine it on the baseline in parentheses or on a new line in a
column heading. (The fact that the character ? is displayed in superscript
may seem inconsistent, but for ?TM? on the baseline, typing the individual
letters is sufficient, so there is not much point in encoding it as a
single character.)

A workaround is to use U+24C7 (?) with superscript formatting, but many
fonts do not support it. It is also often drawn larger, I wonder whether
this is really necessary; remarkably, the HTML character reference name
circledS; is for the circled Latin capital letter S (?, U+24C8), but the
name circledR; is for U+00AE rather than U+24C7.

There is also the (German) circled Wz (?), even though the symbol was
apparently just a Duden idiosyncrasy (and included in Verdana Ref for this
purpose) in the past. An informative note says ?indicate a trademarked term
without making a legal claim of trademark status?; I doubt that this was
the reason not to use ? as it is not forbidden for a third person
(non-registrant) to use ? in an informative way. The actual reason might
have been that ? is American in origin and ? is not about registration in
USPTO (though I would not interpret ? in Germany this way either).

Best regards
Ivan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240915/7b2a9984/attachment.htm>

From aprilop at fn.de  Sun Sep 15 11:21:41 2024
From: aprilop at fn.de (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBQcmlsb3Ag8J+HrvCfh7E=?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:21:41 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>

Ivan Panchenko wrote:

> There is also the (German) circled Wz

The circled Wz was only used in the old West German Duden.
Since re-unification, only circled R has been used in the unified Duden.

> even though the symbol was apparently just a Duden idiosyncrasy

I call it Deutscht?melei.


From jr at qsm.co.il  Sun Sep 15 12:39:42 2024
From: jr at qsm.co.il (Jonathan Rosenne)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:39:42 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
Message-ID: <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

I propose that this is a matter for a style guide rather than for Unicode.

Best Regards,

Jonathan Rosenne

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Andreas Prilop ???? via Unicode
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 7:22 PM
To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign

Ivan Panchenko wrote:

> There is also the (German) circled Wz

The circled Wz was only used in the old West German Duden.
Since re-unification, only circled R has been used in the unified Duden.

> even though the symbol was apparently just a Duden idiosyncrasy

I call it Deutscht?melei.



From sosipiuk at gmail.com  Sun Sep 15 15:19:39 2024
From: sosipiuk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?S=C5=82awomir_Osipiuk?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 20:19:39 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1726431018939.3079746268.3152780617@gmail.com>


While I have no formal expertise here, I always assumed that ? should appear on the baseline, as should ?. In fact I recall instances of seeing them used in close proximity, i.e. ??. To have one be a superscript and one a baseline character would look ridiculous... except that I now find that a couple of the fonts on my system do just that.
This differs from ?, which, having no enclosure, must be somehow distinguished from TM in regular text.
The inconsistency, now that I'm aware of it, bothers me also. However, I feel the baseline glyph is the correct rendering and should prevail.

S?awomir Osipiuk


From jr at qsm.co.il  Sun Sep 15 16:43:00 2024
From: jr at qsm.co.il (Jonathan Rosenne)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:43:00 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <1726431018939.3079746268.3152780617@gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1726431018939.3079746268.3152780617@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR10MB678660F7ADCC2CE4D59018F084672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

See the Chicago Manual of Style,

1.24: Copyright notice
The usual notice consists of three parts: the symbol ?, the first year the book is published, and the name of the copyright owner.

8.154: Trademarks
The advice in this section is intended for those who need to mention a trademarked name in text; it is not intended to guide usage by trademark holders themselves. Brand names that are trademarks?often so indicated in dictionaries?should be capitalized if they must be used. A better choice is to substitute a generic term when available. Although the symbols ? and ? (for registered and unregistered trademarks, respectively) often accompany trademark names on product packaging and in promotional material, there is no legal requirement to use these symbols, and they should be omitted wherever possible.

Best Regards,

Jonathan Rosenne

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of S?awomir Osipiuk via Unicode
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 11:20 PM
To: Ivan Panchenko <ivanpan3 at gmail.com>
Cc: Unicode Discussion <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign


While I have no formal expertise here, I always assumed that ? should appear on the baseline, as should ?. In fact I recall instances of seeing them used in close proximity, i.e. ??. To have one be a superscript and one a baseline character would look ridiculous... except that I now find that a couple of the fonts on my system do just that.
This differs from ?, which, having no enclosure, must be somehow distinguished from TM in regular text.
The inconsistency, now that I'm aware of it, bothers me also. However, I feel the baseline glyph is the correct rendering and should prevail.

S?awomir Osipiuk



From doug at ewellic.org  Sun Sep 15 19:28:16 2024
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:28:16 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SJ0PR03MB65986C5A7DFE26444829AE29CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Ivan Panchenko wrote:

> The registered sign (?, U+00AE) is already shown in superscript in
> some typefaces and on the baseline in others. [...]
>
> How about standardizing the position?

Even with the expansion in scope of Unicode over the years, details of font design like this have continued to remain out of scope, and I hope will continue to do so.

Are there instances in which the semantic meaning of ?, or for that matter ?, differs depending on whether the symbol is small and raised versus large and centered? If there are not, then this is a matter of judgment and taste, not character identity, which is all Unicode should care about here.

It is not like the question of simple versus complex letterforms for Latin ?a? or ?g?, because a use case (IPA) was found where the exact shape of the letter does matter. It is more like debating whether the tail of Latin ?Q? should extend below the baseline or not.

These characters have been around a long time, long before Unicode or computer fonts. Typeface designers have the right to design them in a way that suits the surrounding text. (That said, I do not understand the logic of designing the glyphs for ? and ? differently ? looking at you, Segoe UI and Calibri ? but it is still not Unicode?s business to legislate this.)

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org


From christoph.paeper at crissov.de  Sun Sep 15 23:00:13 2024
From: christoph.paeper at crissov.de (=?utf-8?Q?Christoph_P=C3=A4per?=)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 06:00:13 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1CF208A3-7BEF-47AE-BDE7-271869778703@crissov.de>

Ivan Panchenko:
> 
> How about standardizing the position?

This is basically the same argument as for the asterisk ?*?. I think that this is a valid use case for a registered Variation Selector Sequence in both cases. 


From doug at ewellic.org  Sun Sep 15 23:35:00 2024
From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 04:35:00 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <1CF208A3-7BEF-47AE-BDE7-271869778703@crissov.de>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CF208A3-7BEF-47AE-BDE7-271869778703@crissov.de>
Message-ID: <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

Christoph P?per wrote:

>> How about standardizing the position?
>
> This is basically the same argument as for the asterisk ?*?. I think
> that this is a valid use case for a registered Variation Selector
> Sequence in both cases. 

The problem is that there is no bright line in typeface design of ? between ?clearly small and superscripted? and ?clearly large and not superscripted.? Variation selectors indicate a binary option: either the ?normal? or traditional design, or else an alternative. Some fonts definitely show one style of ? or the other, of course, but there are many others that are somewhere in between ? say, full-sized and slightly raised. Which binary option would encode that?

It?s not the same as something like U+22DA LESS-THAN EQUAL TO OR GREATER-THAN, where the ?equal? line in the middle either is clearly horizontal or else clearly follows the slant of the adjacent lines, with no middle ground.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org



From marius.spix at web.de  Mon Sep 16 02:54:33 2024
From: marius.spix at web.de (Marius Spix)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:54:33 +0200
Subject: Aw: RE: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CF208A3-7BEF-47AE-BDE7-271869778703@crissov.de>
 <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <trinity-9a72cf64-4986-43e5-b657-44d8a78b1c21-1726473273806@3c-app-webde-bap30>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240916/e6d43b1b/attachment.htm>

From cate at cateee.net  Mon Sep 16 03:02:37 2024
From: cate at cateee.net (Giacomo Catenazzi)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:02:37 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
 <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <75dc5ad7-9f81-4611-ab7c-b4a16ee489a9@cateee.net>

I do not think it is style, OTOH design is outside Unicode.

But I think Unicode could add a new table/files with references of 
design requirements, in case of symbols which are well defined in an 
international traety/convention or/and in an other international 
standard. And I think there are various such characters in Unicode.

giacomo



On 2024-09-15 19:39, Jonathan Rosenne via Unicode wrote:
> I propose that this is a matter for a style guide rather than for Unicode.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jonathan Rosenne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Andreas Prilop ???? via Unicode
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2024 7:22 PM
> To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign
>
> Ivan Panchenko wrote:
>
>> There is also the (German) circled Wz
> The circled Wz was only used in the old West German Duden.
> Since re-unification, only circled R has been used in the unified Duden.
>
>> even though the symbol was apparently just a Duden idiosyncrasy
> I call it Deutscht?melei.
>
>

From christoph.paeper at crissov.de  Mon Sep 16 05:15:58 2024
From: christoph.paeper at crissov.de (=?utf-8?Q?Christoph_P=C3=A4per?=)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 12:15:58 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <65D80350-DA44-4070-BDCB-7DBE93BED457@crissov.de>

Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>:
> 
> ?Christoph P?per wrote:
> 
>> This is basically the same argument as for the asterisk ?*?.

I thought it was a recent thread around here that made me think of this, but it was in fact an actual recent character encoding proposal: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2024/24173-middle-asterisk.pdf

>> I think that this is a valid use case for a registered Variation Selector Sequence in both cases.
> 
> The problem is that there is no bright line in typeface design of ? between ?clearly small and superscripted? and ?clearly large and not superscripted.? Variation selectors indicate a binary option: either the ?normal? or traditional design, or else an alternative.

I haven?t conducted any elaborate research on this. My impression was that a large majority of fonts opted to align the Registered symbol ? with the Copyright symbol ? and the Phonogram symbol ?, not with the Trademark symbol ?. The encircled C is almost always shown at capital or line height, the P and R are more variable indeed. 

The superscript style is probably due to their frequent use as footnote marker like word postfixes. A smart font could therefore treat the characters differently based on the preceding character. That?s probably an even better solution than a VSS, and certainly out of scope for Unicode. 

> Some fonts definitely show one style of ? or the other, of course, but there are many others that are somewhere in between ? say, full-sized and slightly raised. Which binary option would encode that?

I would have said that the ?-like full-height style should be considered the default. (Apple?s device and app I?m writing this in disagrees. ????)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240916/160897ba/attachment-0001.htm>

From marius.spix at web.de  Mon Sep 16 07:53:27 2024
From: marius.spix at web.de (Marius Spix)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 14:53:27 +0200
Subject: Aw: RE: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
 <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID: <trinity-99dc74eb-9e24-4a4d-8111-6a6bad96d6aa-1726491207773@3c-app-webde-bs17>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240916/ac354fe3/attachment.htm>

From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Mon Sep 16 12:36:37 2024
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:36:37 -0700
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
Message-ID: <0a243bf6-62bf-41c7-b08a-9af7f9d9bd87@ix.netcom.com>

On 9/15/2024 9:21 AM, Andreas Prilop ?? via Unicode wrote:
> Ivan Panchenko wrote:
>
>> There is also the (German) circled Wz
> The circled Wz was only used in the old West German Duden.
> Since re-unification, only circled R has been used in the unified Duden.
>
>> even though the symbol was apparently just a Duden idiosyncrasy
> I call it Deutscht?melei.
>
No matter what you call it, for a universal character encoding you will 
have to answer the question whether a symbol used in a seminal 
publication needs to be encoded for the sake of being able to correctly 
archive it without hacks like using private fonts or images.

The answer to the question rests on issues whether the publication is 
important enough to warrant very high fidelity or whether there's a 
critical significance to having that symbol over any fallback 
representation.

In this case, the "owners" of the work are still around and active, so 
that means we don't need to make decisions for them.

But imagine for a moment you were researching "Deutscht?melei" and all 
digital archives of those older versions had replaced the "idiosyncratic 
symbol" with the semantically equivalent circled R. Is that particular 
scholarship scenario interesting enough to warrant adding this as a 
historical symbol?

I'm not answering this question, but we are contemplating support for 
early mathematical notations, some of them fairly specific to particular 
mathematicians or even publishers of their work.

There's no hard lines to be found here, and for edge cases the decisions 
can seem arbitrary. But in general, this is a key part in how you 
approach any attempt at making decisions for such edge cases.

A./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240916/fa5ae61d/attachment.htm>

From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Mon Sep 16 12:58:01 2024
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:58:01 -0700
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <1726431018939.3079746268.3152780617@gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1726431018939.3079746268.3152780617@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d8bee29b-ff0a-4209-99b4-37558707f1bb@ix.netcom.com>

On 9/15/2024 1:19 PM, S?awomir Osipiuk via Unicode wrote:
>   I always assumed that ? should appear on the baseline, as should ?.

In the mail client I am using to view these messages, the monospaced 
font has a superscript form while the variable width font has what might 
be called? a "large" superscript form, or a "raised" form.

The latter might well be intended to represent a bit of a compromise, 
but it has the advantage that it makes the symbol more readable on 
screen. The superscript form in the monospaced font could almost be a 
circled dot or star when viewed at the default font size and I could not 
tell whether an R or P is intended.

The issue is that for cases where a larger font is used, that could 
become too prominent. The circled R, after all, is used like an 
annotation, and not as an abbreviation that may stand in for the word 
itself in the sentence as in many uses of the copyright symbol.

The annotation aspect is what makes me think that fonts that show the 
circled R on the baseline have got it wrong.

A./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240916/24ea40d4/attachment.htm>

From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Mon Sep 16 13:02:17 2024
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 11:02:17 -0700
Subject: Aw: RE: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <trinity-9a72cf64-4986-43e5-b657-44d8a78b1c21-1726473273806@3c-app-webde-bap30>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CF208A3-7BEF-47AE-BDE7-271869778703@crissov.de>
 <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <trinity-9a72cf64-4986-43e5-b657-44d8a78b1c21-1726473273806@3c-app-webde-bap30>
Message-ID: <08677b99-7522-45fb-a63b-165d8154b903@ix.netcom.com>

On 9/16/2024 12:54 AM, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:
> There is no semantic difference whether?? is superscripted or not, so 
> that would be a stylistic choice, which can be translated into markup 
> like {\super ?} or<sup>?</sup>.

That's an interesting assertion in the light of the fact that the mark 
is predominantly used to annotate words, not to stand for the word in a 
sentence.

I would argue that using a shape that reflect that most common use is 
the one that is appropriate for plain text.

A./

PS: for some situations you might want to use styling that doesn't limit 
itself to standard superscript. Often the mark is very small when a 
trademark term is show very prominently or in a larger type face than 
the running text on a page.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240916/e1da1480/attachment.htm>

From jameskass at code2001.com  Mon Sep 16 13:31:54 2024
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:31:54 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <08677b99-7522-45fb-a63b-165d8154b903@ix.netcom.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1CF208A3-7BEF-47AE-BDE7-271869778703@crissov.de>
 <SJ0PR03MB6598DCD8E1BEAC6CDCDBCBE6CA602@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <trinity-9a72cf64-4986-43e5-b657-44d8a78b1c21-1726473273806@3c-app-webde-bap30>
 <08677b99-7522-45fb-a63b-165d8154b903@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <65b910bb-3710-46df-ae89-b9bfc04ca401@code2001.com>



On 2024-09-16 6:02 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 9/16/2024 12:54 AM, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:
>> There is no semantic difference whether?? is superscripted or not, so 
>> that would be a stylistic choice, which can be translated into markup 
>> like {\super ?} or<sup>?</sup>.
>
> That's an interesting assertion in the light of the fact that the mark 
> is predominantly used to annotate words, not to stand for the word in 
> a sentence.
>
If there is a semantic difference, then direct encoding of the variant 
seems warranted.? If there is no semantic difference, then this 
discussion seems moot.
>
> I would argue that using a shape that reflect that most common use is 
> the one that is appropriate for plain text.
>
Legibility is appropriate for plain-text.? It's a design choice best 
left to font designers.? If the glyph looks like an encircled dot at 
normal text sizes, then a larger glyph would get the job done.



From ivanpan3 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 16 14:14:40 2024
From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 21:14:40 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>

To make it clear: There is a semantic difference because
superscripting makes it an annotation. Simply writing ?Unicode?? with
the circle on the baseline seems wrong to me because it is like
writing ?UnicodeReg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.?.

Another discrepancy that I noticed concerns the hourglass emojis.
Originally, there was just one (?, U+231B). The reference glyph shows
all of the sand below, in some designs, however, the sand is still
flowing. Now that we have U+23F3 (?, hourglass with flowing sand), it
would make sense that U+231B is shown without flowing sand; in some
designs, however, this is not the case (perhaps to remain consistent
with how it was before) and U+23F3 has a greater proportion of the
sand at the top.


From ivanpan3 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 16 17:41:31 2024
From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 00:41:31 +0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?RG9lcyBVKzI3RTEgcmVhbGx5IG1lYW4g4oCcbmV2ZXLigJ0gcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4g4oCccw==?=
 =?UTF-8?B?b21ldGltZXPigJ0/?=
Message-ID: <CABaS7vNvV-bYCcQEkEbm_HDMiKwjpyDHNTfJ89bdohkCmnkULg@mail.gmail.com>

The white concave-sided diamond (?) has the informative alias ?never
(modal operator)?. I would have expected it to mean the opposite
because U+25C7 (?, white diamond) is used for possibility rather than
impossibility. Two sources that support my view:

https://books.google.com/books?id=41VYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA211
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/8/10/1163

The informative alias of U+27E2 and that of U+27E3 might also need to
be corrected.

Best regards
Ivan


From junicode at jcbradfield.org  Tue Sep 17 02:34:15 2024
From: junicode at jcbradfield.org (Julian Bradfield)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:34:15 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Does U+27E1 really mean =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9Cnever=E2=80=9D?=
 rather than =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9Csometimes=E2=80=9D=3F?=
References: <CABaS7vNvV-bYCcQEkEbm_HDMiKwjpyDHNTfJ89bdohkCmnkULg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <slrnveic7n.1rvlt.jcb@high.jcbradfield.org>

On 2024-09-16, Ivan Panchenko via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
> The white concave-sided diamond (?) has the informative alias ?never
> (modal operator)?. I would have expected it to mean the opposite
> because U+25C7 (?, white diamond) is used for possibility rather than
> impossibility. Two sources that support my view:

I can't say, as a sometimes practising modal logician, that I've ever
seen this symbol as a distinct grapheme. In particular

> https://books.google.com/books?id=41VYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA211

This is not semantically ? distinct from some other diamond, it's just
a diamond that has been designed slightly concave; or if it is
actually a distinct character in the font, it's an authorial choice
(or error), as it's clear from the text that the author is intending
the standard modal diamond, which is used for `possibly' in modal
logic and `sometime' in temporal logic.

> https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/8/10/1163

This paper is the area I used to work in.
Here one can see that the diamond is indeed U+27E1, but nonetheless the
author is using completely standard notation for LTL, and is, either
through the random facilities of their authoring software or
deliberate aesthetic choice, using a concave diamond rather than a
straight diamond. 

You should be looking for an author who uses straight and concave
diamonds contrastively. I imagine that somebody has, though personally
I would consider it a perverse notation to make ? mean `never'!


From ivanpan3 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 17 03:43:16 2024
From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:43:16 +0200
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IERvZXMgVSsyN0UxIHJlYWxseSBtZWFuIOKAnG5ldmVy4oCdIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIA==?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4oCcc29tZXRpbWVz4oCdPw==?=
In-Reply-To: <slrnveic7n.1rvlt.jcb@high.jcbradfield.org>
References: <CABaS7vNvV-bYCcQEkEbm_HDMiKwjpyDHNTfJ89bdohkCmnkULg@mail.gmail.com>
 <slrnveic7n.1rvlt.jcb@high.jcbradfield.org>
Message-ID: <CABaS7vO7saFxZHvACPnjUQZ_aw5JneH3vjYQ3NHjRvdS0j141g@mail.gmail.com>

There is the white square with leftwards tick (?, U+27E4), which
supposedly means ?was always?, but no ?regular? (non-concave-sided)
white diamond with leftwards tick. Hence, I suspect that U+27E1 (?) is
simply used as a temporal equivalent to U+25C7 (though I know that
usually just U+25C7 is used) and expect U+27E2 (?) to mean ?was at
some time? rather than ?was never?.

Julian Bradfield via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>:
>
> On 2024-09-16, Ivan Panchenko via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:
> > The white concave-sided diamond (?) has the informative alias ?never
> > (modal operator)?. I would have expected it to mean the opposite
> > because U+25C7 (?, white diamond) is used for possibility rather than
> > impossibility. Two sources that support my view:
>
> I can't say, as a sometimes practising modal logician, that I've ever
> seen this symbol as a distinct grapheme. In particular
>
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=41VYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA211
>
> This is not semantically ? distinct from some other diamond, it's just
> a diamond that has been designed slightly concave; or if it is
> actually a distinct character in the font, it's an authorial choice
> (or error), as it's clear from the text that the author is intending
> the standard modal diamond, which is used for `possibly' in modal
> logic and `sometime' in temporal logic.
>
> > https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/8/10/1163
>
> This paper is the area I used to work in.
> Here one can see that the diamond is indeed U+27E1, but nonetheless the
> author is using completely standard notation for LTL, and is, either
> through the random facilities of their authoring software or
> deliberate aesthetic choice, using a concave diamond rather than a
> straight diamond.
>
> You should be looking for an author who uses straight and concave
> diamonds contrastively. I imagine that somebody has, though personally
> I would consider it a perverse notation to make ? mean `never'!
>


From pgcon6 at msn.com  Wed Sep 18 03:52:02 2024
From: pgcon6 at msn.com (Peter Constable)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 08:52:02 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

The US Code Title 17, section 401 specifies simply 

	the symbol ? (the letter C in a circle), or the word ?Copyright?, or the abbreviation ?Copr.?;

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html

I don't think any US court is likely to support a claim that superscripting of the symbol is semantically significant.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Ivan Panchenko via Unicode
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:15 PM
To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign

To make it clear: There is a semantic difference because superscripting makes it an annotation. Simply writing ?Unicode?? with the circle on the baseline seems wrong to me because it is like writing ?UnicodeReg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.?.

Another discrepancy that I noticed concerns the hourglass emojis.
Originally, there was just one (?, U+231B). The reference glyph shows all of the sand below, in some designs, however, the sand is still flowing. Now that we have U+23F3 (?, hourglass with flowing sand), it would make sense that U+231B is shown without flowing sand; in some designs, however, this is not the case (perhaps to remain consistent with how it was before) and U+23F3 has a greater proportion of the sand at the top.



From pgcon6 at msn.com  Wed Sep 18 03:58:33 2024
From: pgcon6 at msn.com (Peter Constable)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 08:58:33 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1111:

a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words ?Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? or ?Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.? or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ?;


In point of fact, writing ?Unicode??, however the symbol appears, is legally equivalent in the US to "Unicode Registered in U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off."



P.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 1:52 AM
To: Ivan Panchenko <ivanpan3 at gmail.com>; unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: RE: Position of the registered sign

The US Code Title 17, section 401 specifies simply 

	the symbol ? (the letter C in a circle), or the word ?Copyright?, or the abbreviation ?Copr.?;

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html

I don't think any US court is likely to support a claim that superscripting of the symbol is semantically significant.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Ivan Panchenko via Unicode
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:15 PM
To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign

To make it clear: There is a semantic difference because superscripting makes it an annotation. Simply writing ?Unicode?? with the circle on the baseline seems wrong to me because it is like writing ?UnicodeReg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.?.

Another discrepancy that I noticed concerns the hourglass emojis.
Originally, there was just one (?, U+231B). The reference glyph shows all of the sand below, in some designs, however, the sand is still flowing. Now that we have U+23F3 (?, hourglass with flowing sand), it would make sense that U+231B is shown without flowing sand; in some designs, however, this is not the case (perhaps to remain consistent with how it was before) and U+23F3 has a greater proportion of the sand at the top.



From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Wed Sep 18 04:02:25 2024
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 02:02:25 -0700
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <77262257-00fb-47c1-9a8f-2663a000970e@ix.netcom.com>

What about the statutory language about the R in the circle? That was 
the case that Ivan was trying to address.

A./

On 9/18/2024 1:52 AM, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote:
> The US Code Title 17, section 401 specifies simply
>
> 	the symbol ? (the letter C in a circle), or the word ?Copyright?, or the abbreviation ?Copr.?;
>
> https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html
>
> I don't think any US court is likely to support a claim that superscripting of the symbol is semantically significant.
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Ivan Panchenko via Unicode
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:15 PM
> To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign
>
> To make it clear: There is a semantic difference because superscripting makes it an annotation. Simply writing ?Unicode?? with the circle on the baseline seems wrong to me because it is like writing ?UnicodeReg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.?.
>
> Another discrepancy that I noticed concerns the hourglass emojis.
> Originally, there was just one (?, U+231B). The reference glyph shows all of the sand below, in some designs, however, the sand is still flowing. Now that we have U+23F3 (?, hourglass with flowing sand), it would make sense that U+231B is shown without flowing sand; in some designs, however, this is not the case (perhaps to remain consistent with how it was before) and U+23F3 has a greater proportion of the sand at the top.
>
>


From pkar at ieee.org  Wed Sep 18 04:17:46 2024
From: pkar at ieee.org (Piotr Karocki)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 11:17:46 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <456dd643f8c8bd37d4beb9b359532f5d@mail.gmail.com>

Are you sure that ? always mean ?Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office??
E.g., do you think that ? in some EU-company context also means registered
in US? Not in EU?


-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Constable via Unicode
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2024 10:59
To: Peter Constable; Ivan Panchenko; unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: RE: Position of the registered sign

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1111:

a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may
give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the
words ?Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? or ?Reg. U.S. Pat. &
Tm. Off.? or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ?;


In point of fact, writing ?Unicode??, however the symbol appears, is legally
equivalent in the US to "Unicode Registered in U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off."



P.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 1:52 AM
To: Ivan Panchenko <ivanpan3 at gmail.com>; unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: RE: Position of the registered sign

The US Code Title 17, section 401 specifies simply

	the symbol ? (the letter C in a circle), or the word ?Copyright?, or the
abbreviation ?Copr.?;

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html

I don't think any US court is likely to support a claim that superscripting
of the symbol is semantically significant.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Ivan Panchenko
via Unicode
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:15 PM
To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign

To make it clear: There is a semantic difference because superscripting
makes it an annotation. Simply writing ?Unicode?? with the circle on the
baseline seems wrong to me because it is like writing ?UnicodeReg. U.S. Pat.
& Tm. Off.?.

Another discrepancy that I noticed concerns the hourglass emojis.
Originally, there was just one (?, U+231B). The reference glyph shows all of
the sand below, in some designs, however, the sand is still flowing. Now
that we have U+23F3 (?, hourglass with flowing sand), it would make sense
that U+231B is shown without flowing sand; in some designs, however, this is
not the case (perhaps to remain consistent with how it was before) and
U+23F3 has a greater proportion of the sand at the top.


From ivanpan3 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 18 05:29:45 2024
From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 12:29:45 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>

A court would certainly accept ?Unicode?? with the circle on the
baseline, just like it could accept a contract with a minor
misspelling as valid. This does not change the fact that the
superscripting has a semantic content.

Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>:
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1111:
>
> a registrant of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, may give notice that his mark is registered by displaying with the mark the words ?Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? or ?Reg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.? or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ?;
>
>
> In point of fact, writing ?Unicode??, however the symbol appears, is legally equivalent in the US to "Unicode Registered in U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off."
>
>
>
> P.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 1:52 AM
> To: Ivan Panchenko <ivanpan3 at gmail.com>; unicode at corp.unicode.org
> Subject: RE: Position of the registered sign
>
> The US Code Title 17, section 401 specifies simply
>
>         the symbol ? (the letter C in a circle), or the word ?Copyright?, or the abbreviation ?Copr.?;
>
> https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html
>
> I don't think any US court is likely to support a claim that superscripting of the symbol is semantically significant.
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Ivan Panchenko via Unicode
> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 12:15 PM
> To: unicode at corp.unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Position of the registered sign
>
> To make it clear: There is a semantic difference because superscripting makes it an annotation. Simply writing ?Unicode?? with the circle on the baseline seems wrong to me because it is like writing ?UnicodeReg. U.S. Pat. & Tm. Off.?.
>
> Another discrepancy that I noticed concerns the hourglass emojis.
> Originally, there was just one (?, U+231B). The reference glyph shows all of the sand below, in some designs, however, the sand is still flowing. Now that we have U+23F3 (?, hourglass with flowing sand), it would make sense that U+231B is shown without flowing sand; in some designs, however, this is not the case (perhaps to remain consistent with how it was before) and U+23F3 has a greater proportion of the sand at the top.
>


From jukkakk at gmail.com  Wed Sep 18 08:56:07 2024
From: jukkakk at gmail.com (Jukka K. Korpela)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:56:07 +0300
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGHxYa4wMufu9doXEZEtDcxqHbu-eZz+o6=NJH1fbk20-E-2+A@mail.gmail.com>

Ivan Panchenko wrote via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org) :

> The registered sign (?, U+00AE) is already shown in superscript in some typefaces and on the baseline in others.

The vertical position and the size (relative to font size) indeed varies.

> The discrepancy is annoying because changing the typeface can cause it to appear either too small or too large.

Being too small is more serious. For example, in Aptos, the current
default font in MS Word, it is (almost) illegible in normal copy text
size.

Such problems exist for other characters as well, and they need to be
handled by using a different font when needed, for the text as a whole
or just for the REGISTERED SIGN.

> In particular, I see that it is set without superscript formatting in ?Unicode?? on https://unicode.org/main.html even though the Arial font shows it on the baseline, and simply concatenating the circle in this fashion seems wrong to me (other opinions?).

The REGISTERED SIGN is classified as a symbol, not an alphabetic
character, so it is not part of the preceding word, even when no space
intervenes. Just like a period after a word is not part of the word.

> How about standardizing the position?

I don?t see a reason to do so. REGISTERED SIGN was not unified with
CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER R (where we can expect the R to sit on
the baseline), and we can more or less expect the glyphs for these
characters to differ, but why would we fix the design? Some people
(including some font designers) think that a small superscript-like ?
is nice, some think otherwise. A font could contain alternative
glyphs, to be chosen using variation selectors or other methods.

Jukka


From jameskass at code2001.com  Wed Sep 18 12:11:27 2024
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:11:27 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>



On 2024-09-18 10:29 AM, Ivan Panchenko via Unicode wrote:
> A court would certainly accept ?Unicode?? with the circle on the
> baseline, just like it could accept a contract with a minor
> misspelling as valid. This does not change the fact that the
> superscripting has a semantic content.
This page:
https://www.45cat.com/record/479140
...has a scan of the record label for the song "Somebody to Love" by 
Jefferson Airplane (not the one by Queen).? The RCA Victor label has a 
line of text running around the bottom.? In that line of text, the 
symbol "?" is on the baseline.? Had it been superscripted, it would look 
funny.? But it would not change the semantic.? Clicking on the scan on 
that page will enlarge it.

(Record labels frequently use the symbol ? and sometimes use the symbols 
? and ?.? Generally these symbols are similarly sized and on the baseline.)

From ivanpan3 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 18 13:10:59 2024
From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 20:10:59 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>
Message-ID: <CABaS7vM5xpAovqbqjvDAvYKm8oa4o+JebsQq0Ca91qe1S8r_qg@mail.gmail.com>

James Kass via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>:
> Jefferson Airplane (not the one by Queen).  The RCA Victor label has a
> line of text running around the bottom.  In that line of text, the
> symbol "?" is on the baseline.  Had it been superscripted, it would look
> funny.  But it would not change the semantic.

It would look funny precisely because of the semantics. In that case,
the sign is not just attached to a trademark but simply on a line of
text which itself is already an annotation, so there is no reason for
superscripting the circled R, of course.

> (Record labels frequently use the symbol ? and sometimes use the symbols
> ? and ?.  Generally these symbols are similarly sized and on the baseline.)

(My position was that U+00AE should be displayed on the baseline.)


From jameskass at code2001.com  Wed Sep 18 14:53:37 2024
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:53:37 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CABaS7vM5xpAovqbqjvDAvYKm8oa4o+JebsQq0Ca91qe1S8r_qg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>
 <CABaS7vM5xpAovqbqjvDAvYKm8oa4o+JebsQq0Ca91qe1S8r_qg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5b391d76-3a8a-4b2d-a910-950efa804483@code2001.com>



On 2024-09-18 6:10 PM, Ivan Panchenko via Unicode wrote:
> It would look funny precisely because of the semantics. In that case,
> the sign is not just attached to a trademark but simply on a line of
> text which itself is already an annotation, so there is no reason for
> superscripting the circled R, of course.

Here's another label scan from 45cat:
https://www.45cat.com/record/p8046

This one is "I Won't Grow Up" by The Fools.

Both the ? and ? symbols can be seen on that scan.? The "?" symbol is 
superscripted, which is the stylistic convention when it is associated 
with a logo.? Because it is the logo which is important and nothing 
should distract from it.? The logo cannot be reproduced in plain text, 
of course, but it can be represented in plain text with no loss in 
legibility:? "EMI ?".? There is no semantic distinction involved 
regardless of font choice.


From mark at kli.org  Wed Sep 18 15:48:29 2024
From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:48:29 -0400
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <CAGHxYa4wMufu9doXEZEtDcxqHbu-eZz+o6=NJH1fbk20-E-2+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHxYa4wMufu9doXEZEtDcxqHbu-eZz+o6=NJH1fbk20-E-2+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7c347459-8ee9-4333-acb5-d3472ff05827@kli.org>

On 9/18/24 09:56, Jukka K. Korpela via Unicode wrote:
> Ivan Panchenko wrote via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org) :
>
>> The registered sign (?, U+00AE) is already shown in superscript in some typefaces and on the baseline in others.
> The vertical position and the size (relative to font size) indeed varies.
>
> ....
>> How about standardizing the position?

Wouldn't belatedly making a "standard" of something that's been around 
so long also create a lot of hassle for font designers, etc?? All of a 
sudden, fonts that have been perfectly conformant for decades suddenly 
are non-conformant, and people have to come out with new versions.? Or 
what is FAR more likely, nobody cares and nobody notices and everyone 
leaves the fonts alone, in which case what has been accomplished?? We'd 
have successfully declared some set of fonts "non-conformant", but on 
the plus side... um. On the plus side, what?

~mark


From asmusf at ix.netcom.com  Wed Sep 18 16:55:38 2024
From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 14:55:38 -0700
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <7c347459-8ee9-4333-acb5-d3472ff05827@kli.org>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHxYa4wMufu9doXEZEtDcxqHbu-eZz+o6=NJH1fbk20-E-2+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7c347459-8ee9-4333-acb5-d3472ff05827@kli.org>
Message-ID: <9ce6978b-6ae1-4e62-8c88-3527d8207c01@ix.netcom.com>

Unicode has formal stability guarantees that prevent many 
well-intentioned changes. These are usually reserved for cases where any 
change could be damaging.

While not a formal guarantee, we should treat all requests to make 
changes how we describe, annotated or classify any long-standing, 
widely-used characters as if the following principled applied: "First, 
do no harm".

In this case, the maximum we could do is rate some designs as "most 
suitable for plain text interchange and viewing" and explain why: the 
general expectation to see this symbol shown as an annotation and the 
need to keep it large enough to be recognizable/readable at typical text 
font sizes might make a design that occupies a middle-ground between 
full-size base line and small superscript glyphs the one that is most 
ideal for plain text environments.

That leaves open that other designs might work well if not viewed in 
plain? text, but styled to get the intended appearance.

We might also look at the origin and if all source character sets 
unified into the original Unicode had this symbol superscripted, we 
could state that historical fact.

All of this would not affect shipping fonts, but might affect people 
contemplating new designs. (And it might nip future discussions in the 
bud - which would be the most useful outcome).

A./


On 9/18/2024 1:48 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> On 9/18/24 09:56, Jukka K. Korpela via Unicode wrote:
>> Ivan Panchenko wrote via Unicode (unicode at corp.unicode.org) :
>>
>>> The registered sign (?, U+00AE) is already shown in superscript in 
>>> some typefaces and on the baseline in others.
>> The vertical position and the size (relative to font size) indeed 
>> varies.
>>
>> ....
>>> How about standardizing the position?
>
> Wouldn't belatedly making a "standard" of something that's been around 
> so long also create a lot of hassle for font designers, etc?? All of a 
> sudden, fonts that have been perfectly conformant for decades suddenly 
> are non-conformant, and people have to come out with new versions.? Or 
> what is FAR more likely, nobody cares and nobody notices and everyone 
> leaves the fonts alone, in which case what has been accomplished?? 
> We'd have successfully declared some set of fonts "non-conformant", 
> but on the plus side... um. On the plus side, what?
>
> ~mark
>


From jameskass at code2001.com  Wed Sep 18 18:04:59 2024
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 23:04:59 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <9ce6978b-6ae1-4e62-8c88-3527d8207c01@ix.netcom.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHxYa4wMufu9doXEZEtDcxqHbu-eZz+o6=NJH1fbk20-E-2+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <7c347459-8ee9-4333-acb5-d3472ff05827@kli.org>
 <9ce6978b-6ae1-4e62-8c88-3527d8207c01@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <beb9ed8c-f01f-4193-8cc9-9bf38ea0ea70@code2001.com>



On 2024-09-18 9:55 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
> ... In this case, the maximum we could do is rate some designs as 
> "most suitable for plain text interchange and viewing" and explain 
> why: the general expectation to see this symbol shown as an annotation ...
This assertion about the general expectation needs proof.? If true, then 
legacy Microsoft fonts which use the same metrics for the ? and ? 
symbols have been wrong "since long".? As far as I can tell, the symbol 
is normal sized when used in running text.? It only appears to be an 
annotation when used in conjuction with a logo.? It's true that 
appearing with a logo is a most likely spot to find it.? But logos and 
their annotations need rich text.? It could be argued that the EMI logo 
appearing in a scan linked recently has the ? shown at a perfectly 
normal size, and that it's the logo which has been made so incredibly 
larger that it hangs way below the baseline.? Logos on various products 
are designed to be large and to stand out.? Sales and Marketing 101.
>
> We might also look at the origin and if all source character sets 
> unified into the original Unicode had this symbol superscripted, we 
> could state that historical fact.
>
But suppose they don't.? Legacy charts, as I recall, show the ? and ? 
symbols as having the same metrics.? Like in this chart on page 10:
https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC2/WG3/docs/n411.pdf


From cate at cateee.net  Thu Sep 19 02:37:32 2024
From: cate at cateee.net (Giacomo Catenazzi)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 09:37:32 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <5b391d76-3a8a-4b2d-a910-950efa804483@code2001.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>
 <CABaS7vM5xpAovqbqjvDAvYKm8oa4o+JebsQq0Ca91qe1S8r_qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b391d76-3a8a-4b2d-a910-950efa804483@code2001.com>
Message-ID: <03ffe378-40ef-4c4e-a367-3ad90819fcf2@cateee.net>

On 2024-09-18 21:53, James Kass via Unicode wrote:

>
>
> On 2024-09-18 6:10 PM, Ivan Panchenko via Unicode wrote:
>> It would look funny precisely because of the semantics. In that case,
>> the sign is not just attached to a trademark but simply on a line of
>> text which itself is already an annotation, so there is no reason for
>> superscripting the circled R, of course.
>
> Here's another label scan from 45cat:
> https://www.45cat.com/record/p8046
>
> This one is "I Won't Grow Up" by The Fools.
>
> Both the ? and ? symbols can be seen on that scan.? The "?" symbol is 
> superscripted, which is the stylistic convention when it is associated 
> with a logo.? Because it is the logo which is important and nothing 
> should distract from it.? The logo cannot be reproduced in plain text, 
> of course, but it can be represented in plain text with no loss in 
> legibility:? "EMI ?".? There is no semantic distinction involved 
> regardless of font choice.

Note: the use in logos and labels is different: it is part of design, 
and outside Unicode scope. The interesting cases are about using normal 
text and the registered mark.

giacomo



From jameskass at code2001.com  Thu Sep 19 21:14:33 2024
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 02:14:33 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <03ffe378-40ef-4c4e-a367-3ad90819fcf2@cateee.net>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>
 <CABaS7vM5xpAovqbqjvDAvYKm8oa4o+JebsQq0Ca91qe1S8r_qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b391d76-3a8a-4b2d-a910-950efa804483@code2001.com>
 <03ffe378-40ef-4c4e-a367-3ad90819fcf2@cateee.net>
Message-ID: <687c2def-fb6c-416c-aca1-92c5ff771408@code2001.com>



On 2024-09-19 7:37 AM, Giacomo Catenazzi via Unicode wrote:
> Note: the use in logos and labels is different: it is part of design, 
> and outside Unicode scope. The interesting cases are about using 
> normal text and the registered mark.

Yes.? The RCA Victor label scan linked earlier shows the symbol in a 
line of text.? The response was that there was no need to superscript it 
in that case.? So the EMI label scan link was sent to illustrate that 
the symbol *looks* to be superscripted when it is used to annotate a 
logo.? Logos and layout are out of scope indeed.

For normal text, as far as I can tell, the default fonts installed with 
Windows 98 use the same metrics for both ? and ? with the exception of 
Lucida Console.? Lucida Console does show the ? symbol superscripted and 
displays the copyright symbol normally.? The Haettenschweiler font shows 
both ? and ? as superscripted.? So it seems likely that any Windows 
computer generated text from that era would show "?" at a normal size 
unless the Lucida Console or Haettenschweiler fonts were involved.



From jameskass at code2001.com  Thu Sep 19 21:19:33 2024
From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 02:19:33 +0000
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <687c2def-fb6c-416c-aca1-92c5ff771408@code2001.com>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaS7vOt-42n-tMbzDxMUXH9gfKye5VJgg7+R-XWDu3H3Hh78A@mail.gmail.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413DD760F29E215D957713F86622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR02MB6413D77483F2DEF191CB30E286622@MN2PR02MB6413.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABaS7vMv93Q-8Nn9AhhPxsHR=aXOXTSanOf=kvQok4RqGhU3YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e8551ed-81db-48ce-8219-077c538a5e02@code2001.com>
 <CABaS7vM5xpAovqbqjvDAvYKm8oa4o+JebsQq0Ca91qe1S8r_qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b391d76-3a8a-4b2d-a910-950efa804483@code2001.com>
 <03ffe378-40ef-4c4e-a367-3ad90819fcf2@cateee.net>
 <687c2def-fb6c-416c-aca1-92c5ff771408@code2001.com>
Message-ID: <a090b571-c6e3-4343-a6ec-405541c08a04@code2001.com>


The REGISTERED SIGN (?) was introduced in 1946 with the Lanham Act. (In 
Section 29.)

Quoting from:
https://bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1111.html
"..., or the letter R enclosed within a circle, thus ?;..."

There was no mention of it being superscripted.? It would be interesting 
to see a scan from the original.? It would surprise me if it appeared in 
the original document as a superscript symbol.

In this PDF from the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office on page 237 (from 
January 1, 2023),
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tmlaw.pdf
... the symbol is shown in running text at a normal size and on the 
baseline.

Seems to me that the organization that invented the symbol should be 
considered the authority on its display.



From duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp  Fri Sep 20 01:35:53 2024
From: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?=)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 15:35:53 +0900
Subject: Aw: RE: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <trinity-99dc74eb-9e24-4a4d-8111-6a6bad96d6aa-1726491207773@3c-app-webde-bs17>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
 <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <trinity-99dc74eb-9e24-4a4d-8111-6a6bad96d6aa-1726491207773@3c-app-webde-bs17>
Message-ID: <2a581194-d4bd-4fe1-a26e-386261df3b7e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

Not really relevant to the present discussion, but:

On 2024-09-16 21:53, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:
> The difference is that the circled Wz makes no difference between registered
> trademarks, unregistered trademarks and unregistered service marks.
> It was only used by German dictionaries to avoid lawsuits, because generic terms
> commonly used in colloquial language were added to the dictionary, for example:
> F?hn (hair dryer), Pritt (glue stick), Tempo (tissues), Zewa (paper towels),
> Edding (marker pen), Post-it (sticky note) or Pampers (diapers).

With respect to F?hn, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind says:

"The German word F?hn (pronounced the same way) also means 'hairdryer', 
while the word F?n is a genericized trademark today owned by AEG."

Regards,    Martin.



From marius.spix at web.de  Fri Sep 20 06:46:31 2024
From: marius.spix at web.de (Marius Spix)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 13:46:31 +0200
Subject: Aw: Re:  RE: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <2a581194-d4bd-4fe1-a26e-386261df3b7e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
 <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <trinity-99dc74eb-9e24-4a4d-8111-6a6bad96d6aa-1726491207773@3c-app-webde-bs17>
 <2a581194-d4bd-4fe1-a26e-386261df3b7e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <trinity-b2c1235a-6f49-4282-8550-3f2b152dcfb0-1726832791428@3c-app-webde-bap03>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240920/11d3b9a0/attachment.htm>

From steffen at sdaoden.eu  Fri Sep 20 18:00:50 2024
From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 01:00:50 +0200
Subject: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <trinity-b2c1235a-6f49-4282-8550-3f2b152dcfb0-1726832791428@3c-app-webde-bap03>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
 <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <trinity-99dc74eb-9e24-4a4d-8111-6a6bad96d6aa-1726491207773@3c-app-webde-bs17>
 <2a581194-d4bd-4fe1-a26e-386261df3b7e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <trinity-b2c1235a-6f49-4282-8550-3f2b152dcfb0-1726832791428@3c-app-webde-bap03>
Message-ID: <20240920230050.ScFWkZhp@steffen%sdaoden.eu>

Marius Spix via Unicode wrote in
 <trinity-b2c1235a-6f49-4282-8550-3f2b152dcfb0-1726832791428 at 3c-app-webde\
 -bap03>:
 |Thank you for this information. German trademark law is very strict. \

As far as *i* know, it was all Europeanized in 1995.  Other than
that there seems to be a many-hundred-year history on this law,
with major changes in the 19th century.  Wz thus seems to refer to
the pre-1995 era, whereas we (here) all remember and still see
(huh?!?) the non-abbreviated "Eingetragenes Warenzeichen"
(registered trademark).

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

From rick at corp.unicode.org  Tue Sep 24 12:45:27 2024
From: rick at corp.unicode.org (Rick McGowan)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:45:27 -0700
Subject: Request re: UTW 2024 and Social Media
In-Reply-To: <CAPDJv2Je45CQUQ+9KVpkFUTiyLVpg1Ux7Cj4FibvG906swkrfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPDJv2Je45CQUQ+9KVpkFUTiyLVpg1Ux7Cj4FibvG906swkrfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0bf452d1-5c40-316f-89b5-f289c4717e1d@unicode.org>

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: 	Request re: UTW 2024 and Social Media
Date: 	Tue, 24 Sep 2024 13:38:20 -0400
From: 	Annie Dowling



Hello All,


Happy Tuesday! In an effort to promote awareness and drive registration 
for the Unicode Technology Workshop 2024 (UTW), we?re inviting each of 
you to help spread the word. Thanks to Google for hosting this year?s 
event on October 22-23 in Sunnyvale, CA.


Here are the platforms where we?re currently sharing posts to boost 
registration. You can help by clicking through and sharing these to your 
own networks! Also please kindly follow Unicode and ?like? our posts, if 
you don?t already, as well as share our posts.


 1.

    Facebook:

     1.

        Friends of Unicode: Register Today!
        <https://www.facebook.com/share/v/ynvjo9gZyKf9Y6XT/>

 2.

    Adopt-A-Character: Learn More!
    <https://www.facebook.com/unicodeaac>?Or Register Today!
    <https://www.facebook.com/share/v/Mu3cBdBBGZxnLB92/>


 2.

    LinkedIn: Register Today!
    <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/unicode-inc_internationalization-unicode-utw2024-activity-7242913169520697346-9xbh?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop>


 3.

    Twitter/X: Register Today!
    <https://x.com/unicode/status/1836143460966887647>


 4.

    Mastodon Register Today! <https://mastodon.social/@unicode>


 5.

    YouTube: More Sessions Confirmed for UTW 2024!
    <https://youtu.be/dsgbYV33rgk?feature=shared>


 6.

    Reddit--Register Today!
    <https://www.reddit.com/r/Unicode/comments/1fof1fr/register_today_for_the_unicode_technology/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button>


 7.

    The Unicode Blog <https://blog.unicode.org/>


Thank you for spreading the word about Unicode?s second in-person UTW 
2024 event and for all you do!


All the best,

Annie




facebook <https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063717024204> 	
	twitter <https://x.com/home> 	
	linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/15709606/admin/dashboard/> 	

	
	


    AnnieDowling

Community Engagement & Marketing Manager

The Unicode Consortium




emailAddress

	annie at unicode.org <mailto:annie at unicode.org>
website

	Unicode Consortium <http://www.unicode.org/>


Adopt a Character or Emoji! <https://aac.unicode.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240924/27a1285e/attachment-0001.htm>

From dpk at nonceword.org  Sat Sep 28 15:22:37 2024
From: dpk at nonceword.org (Daphne Preston-Kendal)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 22:22:37 +0200
Subject: Note of concern: Status of John Cowan
Message-ID: <BD66405D-7148-47D4-BF31-3A966E7CC772@nonceword.org>

Dear Unicoders,

John Cowan, longtime contributor to Unicode and many other things besides, has not been heard from by anyone online since May. Contact with him was intermittent for a few months before then.

John has had occasional serious health problems over the last few years, but has always previously managed to let me or someone else in the Scheme community know when he?s had to take a break for medical reasons. I?m also concerned for the wellbeing of his teenaged grandson, who, as of the last time I spoke to John, was in his care.

Another friend and former colleague of John on this list, Mark Shoulson, has tried reaching him by telephone, and I have tried sending physical post to him (also addressed to his daughter and grandson) and also got no response. Needless to say, I and all of our mutual friends miss him and are worried about him.

I have no other contact information for John besides his email address, phone number, and postal address (which may be outdated). If anyone knows where he is, please let me know. Or, if you have contact information for him, or for his daughter or someone else close to him who may know what has happened to him, please get in touch as well. And if anyone is in touch with him, please send him my best wishes and those of Schemers and all our mutual friends.

Many thanks,


Daphne Preston-Kendal
(John?s successor as chair of the R7RS Large Scheme Working Group, and his friend for 10+ years before that)

dpk at nonceword dot org



From tom.moore at microsoft.com  Mon Sep 30 14:14:09 2024
From: tom.moore at microsoft.com (Tom Moore)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:14:09 +0000
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Position of the registered sign
In-Reply-To: <20240920230050.ScFWkZhp@steffen%sdaoden.eu>
References: <CABaS7vMv_Emcr=mK8CT3xs49QX93uF2xK3YrUK+AAkpWAfKp=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DE17EF6-F4BF-4E1A-A000-24091CCC452E@fn.de>
 <DB3PR10MB6786F12AA802AF71097DDB8E84672@DB3PR10MB6786.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <trinity-99dc74eb-9e24-4a4d-8111-6a6bad96d6aa-1726491207773@3c-app-webde-bs17>
 <2a581194-d4bd-4fe1-a26e-386261df3b7e@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
 <trinity-b2c1235a-6f49-4282-8550-3f2b152dcfb0-1726832791428@3c-app-webde-bap03>
 <20240920230050.ScFWkZhp@steffen%sdaoden.eu>
Message-ID: <MW4PR00MB165336890FC29307558834C0E3762@MW4PR00MB1653.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>

I suppose some traditions of superscripting these symbols could originate not from typographic plain text usages, but from their addition to packaging and advertisement materials, as marks appended to larger, bolder, stylized, and/or colored brand names.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of Steffen Nurpmeso via Unicode
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Marius Spix via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
Cc: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Position of the registered sign

Marius Spix via Unicode wrote in
 <trinity-b2c1235a-6f49-4282-8550-3f2b152dcfb0-1726832791428 at 3c-app-webde\
 -bap03>:
 |Thank you for this information. German trademark law is very strict. \

As far as *i* know, it was all Europeanized in 1995.  Other than that there seems to be a many-hundred-year history on this law, with major changes in the 19th century.  Wz thus seems to refer to the pre-1995 era, whereas we (here) all remember and still see
(huh?!?) the non-abbreviated "Eingetragenes Warenzeichen"
(registered trademark).

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off (By Robert Gernhardt)