[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Are charset names supposed to be case sensitive?
Ken Whistler, Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:13:26 -0800:
> On 12/17/2011 7:35 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:
>>> It separates 'unicode' from the trademarked/registered 'UNICODE'.
>> Not a lawyer, but I don't think the trademark office is going to
>> consider cased versions of the same word sufficiently distinct as to
> http://www.unicode.org/policies/logo_policy.html
>
> Apparently it is an internet meme that the CAPITALIZED version is
> somehow official and refers to the standard and/or the trademark,
> but "Unicode" is not any kind of acronym or abbreviation.
Interesting. But their logo uses something that in my view can be
interpreted as uppercase. Also, if you have ever announced something on
AdWords, then you might know that they do not permit the use of
all-caps, except in company name. So, in a way, this meme does not need
to be linked to all-caps as something that is 'internetish' - it can
instead be explained by typical layout conventions.
> That said, Shawn's point is still valid -- it is unlikely that
> "Unicode", "unicode", and "UNICODE" would be considered as
> referring to different things based on their
> capitalization (or lack thereof).
Regardless: Lowercase is the variant that *the least* is likely to be
perceived as the official name. Except, of course, that we were to pick
'unicODE' or something ...
> I realize this is somewhat peripheral to the discussion about these
> new registration proposals, but I just want to make sure that
> whatever happens with them doesn't further contribute to confusion
> about the identity of "Unicode".
If we were hindered from registering this charset, then it would be
logical if Unicode Inc took actions against Microsoft too ... But of
course: 'unicode' as a charset name is of course 'too good' - I'm
pretty sure that many users of Microsoft's Office products picks
'Unicode' - whichever capitalization they have used - because that name
sounds more familiar than the mysterious 'UTF-8'.
With regard to Unicode Inc, then I think it should be considered an
improvement if 'unicode' was registered as an 'of limited use' or - if
possible - 'obsolete' charset name, as either of those should mean that
'unicode' and 'unicodeFFFE' would have to be avoided in standard
compliant documents.
--
Leif H Silli