Michael Everson summarized:
> The upshot is this:
> 1. Proponants of the new character have been asked to show it in actual
> widespread use.
I agree that there is a need for this. In my original response to the
proposal for a COPYLEFT SIGN, I indicated that the key issue was whether
there was evidence of significant usage as a character in documents
using more or less standard typographical conventions. (E.g. printed
license agreements.) This would distinguish it from a mere logo.
> 2. Proponants of the new character have been advised that the name they
> propose is not appropriate given UCS naming conventions.
I consider this to be mostly bologna. One person, who is a member
of the Irish standards body, has so advised the list, but his opinion
seems to be shared by few. I see no problem whatsoever with the
proposed name -- it seems to follow UCS naming conventions just fine.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT