From: "Marion Gunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ar 17:51 +0200 2003/05/29, Philippe Verdy entre sur son clavier:
> >I would prefer to say that Netscape 4.0 is dead, but Netscape 4.7x is not (I
>
> D'accord. (With the above I'd have to agree.)
>
> >see no reason why users should continue to use versions
Ar 17:51 +0200 2003/05/29, scríobh Philippe Verdy:
>..
>I would prefer to say that Netscape 4.0 is dead, but Netscape 4.7x is not (I
D'accord. (With the above I'd have to agree.)
>see no reason why users should continue to use versions before 4.7, as the
>4.7 >version fixed a lot of interoperabil
> I wonder how a character standardizer would like it if a bunch of
> graphic artists criticized her character encoding. ☺
A professional of any kind will listen to critique.
> 2. It is unikely that the Unicode *logo* itself (i.e. the thing at
> http://www.unicode.org/webscripts/logo60s2.gif) will be incorporated
> directly in any image that people are allowed to put on their
> websites,
> because to put the Unicode logo on a product or whatever requires a
> licens
t; logo, and we will take that feedback into consideration!
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
► “Eppur si muove” ◄
- Original Message -
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 15:08
Edward H Trager wrote:
> John Hudson wrote:
> > John Cowan wrote:
> > >Netscape 4.x is dead.
> >
> > I wish it were. Monitoring the web traffic at one of the sites I'm involved
> > with, I am dismayed to see that more than 5% of visitors are using Netscape
> > 4.7.
>
> Lots of organizations may ha
> On Thu, 29 May 2003, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> Rick McGowan wrote:
> > 2. It is unikely that the Unicode *logo* itself (i.e. the thing at
> > http://www.unicode.org/webscripts/logo60s2.gif) will be incorporated
> > directly in any image that people are allowed to put on their
> > websites, beca
On Wed, 28 May 2003, John Hudson wrote:
> At 08:32 PM 5/28/2003, John Cowan wrote:
>
> >Netscape 4.x is dead.
>
> I wish it were. Monitoring the web traffic at one of the sites I'm involved
> with, I am dismayed to see that more than 5% of visitors are using Netscape
> 4.7.
You should not be dis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> IIRC, there are still problems with recent versions of browsers in relation
> to NCRs: some understand hex but not decimal, or vice versa.
I have not heard of any that don't support decimal NCRs.
--
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse for
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > there are still (even more) browsers that do not display UTF-8
> > correctly...
>
> > who still use very often a browser that supports some form their
> > national encoding (SJIS, GB2312, Big5, KSC5601), sometimes with
> > ISO2022-* but shamely do not decode UTF-8 pro
Philippe,
> From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It looks to me like UNCODE. Has the UN has taken a rode in
> globalization? Maybe the web page has no scripting but is still savvy.
>
> Wrong! You strip the very visible dot from the i letter, you also
> refse to see that there's a lig
John Cowan wrote:
> Netscape 4.x is dead.
Alas no. I have two recent (2002 and 2003) cases where the customers, with
large NS4.x installations they were not ready to upgrade, said in effect
"your software must be NS4.x-compatible or no deal".
--
François Yergeau
> there are still (even more) browsers that do not display UTF-8
> correctly...
> who still use very often a browser that supports some form their
> national encoding (SJIS, GB2312, Big5, KSC5601), sometimes with
> ISO2022-* but shamely do not decode UTF-8 properly (even when the
> page is correc
Compliant is a problem term, as compliance is a problem concept. I
believe
we discussed, some months ago, the problem of claiming compliance for
systems or applications, since very little (any?) software implements
everything in Unicode or implements everything equally well. What
would it
mean to
From: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It looks to me like UNCODE. Has the UN has taken a rode in globalization? Maybe
> the web page has no scripting but is still savvy.
Wrong! You strip the very visible dot from the i letter, you also refse to see that
there's a ligature between the U a
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As this comes from an Unicode official, I guess we should simply accept
> it... Nevertheless, I wonder whether displaying the Unicode *logo* per se
> has the same legal implication as displaying a *banner* which contains the
> Unicode logo.
I note that
Rick McGowan wrote:
> 2. It is unikely that the Unicode *logo* itself (i.e. the thing at
> http://www.unicode.org/webscripts/logo60s2.gif) will be incorporated
> directly in any image that people are allowed to put on their
> websites, because to put the Unicode logo on a product or whatever
> r
From: "Tom Gewecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I wonder about this. The Unicode FAQ makes the point that some browsers
> will not display NCR's unless the charset is UTF-8. It does seem logical
> that, NCR's or not, a page with the logo should be in one of the three
> standard Unicode Encoding Forms,
At 08:32 PM 5/28/2003, John Cowan wrote:
Netscape 4.x is dead.
I wish it were. Monitoring the web traffic at one of the sites I'm involved
with, I am dismayed to see that more than 5% of visitors are using Netscape
4.7.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [
Tom Gewecke scripsit:
> I wonder about this. The Unicode FAQ makes the point that some browsers
> will not display NCR's unless the charset is UTF-8.
Netscape 4.x is dead.
> It does seem logical
> that, NCR's or not, a page with the logo should be in one of the three
> standard Unicode Encodi
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Why would you think that when the logo page says it must be UTF-8?
>
> No, the page suggests UTF-8 or an encoding form that complies with
> Unicode... (So I think it includes ISO-8859-1 which enough for most
> European languages, but still allows to use non Latin-1 charac
>> >My question is more related to the requirements to display such a logo.
>> After
>> >all, one could use this logo on a web site that uses a standardized
>> encoding
>> >like ISO-8859-1
>>
>> Why would you think that when the logo page says it must be UTF-8?
>
>No, the page suggests UTF-8 or an
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 28/05/2003 13:56:47 "Philippe Verdy" wrote:
>
> >My question is more related to the requirements to display such a logo.
> After
> >all, one could use this logo on a web site that uses a standardized
> encoding
> >like ISO-8859-1
>
> Why would you think that when th
At 02:26 PM 5/28/2003, Edward H Trager wrote:
The purpose of having such a logo is to highlight the fact that the web
page uses Unicode encoding. There are still millions and millions of
people in the world who don't have a clue what Unicode is. Displaying the
logo enhances the visibility of Uni
Since nobody else is saying anything even semi-official, let me
inject... As we move through this discussion of snazziness and visual
aspects of the "Unicode Savvy" logo, people should keep a couple of
things in mind:
1. UTC has not grappled with what "compliant" means, and unless/until
that h
>
> "J Do" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Instead of that, how about just plain "OK", which has already
> become quite universal.
>
> No need for words like "savvy", "compliant" or "OK" - just
> having the check mark symbol as in Edward's design says enough
> and at that way it's not favouring on
"J Do" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead of that, how about just plain "OK", which has already
become quite universal.
No need for words like "savvy", "compliant" or "OK" - just
having the check mark symbol as in Edward's design says enough
and at that way it's not favouring one language or a
At 11:16 AM 5/28/2003, Edward H Trager wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I don't really think we are trying to say that a Web page is
> "knowledgeable" about Unicode, but rather that it "uses" or "takes
> advantage of" Unicode. How about "Powered by Unicode"?
I don't think "powered
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I don't really think we are trying to say that a Web page is
> "knowledgeable" about Unicode, but rather that it "uses" or "takes
> advantage of" Unicode. How about "Powered by Unicode"?
I don't think "powered" is the right word. "Unicode Compliant" is
Hey, if you can give me a tiff of the "Unicode" word (in it's large
original format) which is the part that I actually did like, I could
re-do the rest for you in PhotoShop v6 format, and submit as a
suggestion.
In my humble opinion, I do think that the unique design of the "UNI"
ligature in the
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> The OED says "Orig. Black & pidgin Eng. after Sp. sabe usted you know"
The OED's etymology is almost certainly wrong in this case. M-w.com, as well
as creolists generally, are quite firm in the Portuguese etymology, not
(obviously) on formalist grounds, but because of
I wonder how a character standardizer would like it if a bunch of
graphic artists criticized her character encoding. ☺
OK, I have to admit that even though I applied the Savvy logo to my home
page almost immediately, with an eye toward applying it to all my other
pages, I could see some room for
A number of people in this thread have suggested that the "Unicode Savvy"
logos shown are "not snazzy", but the set of W3C compliance logo's are
also not graphically "snazzy".
Snazzy or not, everyone knows what the W3C logos look like, and thus they
serve very well their purpose.
In line with a
Marco,
> No, "archaic", "American" and "informal" are usage labels, not
> translations.
> The translation is "buon senso". (BTW, it is: "Dizionario Garzanti di
> inglese", Garzanti Editore, 1997, ISBN 88-11-10212-X)
Webster's has to know, to understand or common sense, understanding. In actuall
On Wed, 28 May 2003 08:02:13 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> In case your dictionary does not explain this, its etymology is the
> Portuguese verb "saber" < Lat. SAPERE, which was used in the original
> Lingua Franca and from there spread into almost all the pidgins and
> creoles of the Earth. As you
> And how about some non-latin script, non-English versions for
> web sites where the main content is in other scripts and
> languages.
>
> (What is the ideograph for "savvy" ?)
Instead of that, how about just plain "OK", which has already become quite universal.
_
James
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Savvy is better understood in this context as "aware", than
> "archaic" or "informal" in your English-Italian dictionnary.
No, "archaic", "American" and "informal" are usage labels, not translations.
The translation is "buon senso". (BTW, it is: "Dizionario Garzanti di
in
And how about some non-latin script, non-English versions for
web sites where the main content is in other scripts and
languages.
(What is the ideograph for "savvy" ?)
- Chris
From: "Theodore H. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why not put up a call for Unicode logos? Instead of asking for an
> inhouse one to be made, I'm sure you'd get more logos offered than you
> could know what to do with. At the worst, you could have a design to
> learn from.
>
> Some of my logos we
> And one of the design goals was to make it small (but recognizable),
> so that it wouldn't burden the loading of pages that might want
> to use it. The snazzier you make it, the more you make people
> pay (in time and bytes) for loading the snazz.
So, you mean that it's not likely we could crea
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Yes, you are right. I never heard the word "savvy" before this morning.
Savvy is better understood in this context as "aware", than "archaic" or "informal" in
your English-Italian dictionnary. It means the author of the website that uses this
logo has
They were loosely modelled on the W3C HTML validation logo, which
is comparable, in some ways, in what it is trying to do. See:
http://www.unicode.org/consortium/newcomer.html
My third was that I probably ought to say it anyhow. Maybe they will
will take a look at other large organisation's logos
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
> My English-Italian dictionary has two "savvy" entries: an adjective (labeled
> "fam. amer." = "US English, informal") and a noun (labeled "antiq. / fam." =
> "archaic or informal"). However, all the translations have to do with
> "common sense", and none of them seems t
Andrew C. West wrote:
> I agree with Philippe on this one. A sensible, and easily
> understandable, motto
> like "The world speaks Unicode" would be much better. The
> word "savvy" just
> sends a shiver of embarrasment down my spine. Not only is
> "savvy" not a word
> that is probably high in th
On Wed, 28 May 2003 00:20:38 +0200, "Philippe Verdy" wrote:
> I would have much prefered expressions like "smart with Unicode", or "The world
> speaks Unicode", or simply "this site speaks Unicode", or "Unicode feeds this
> site", or the small Unicode logo with the text "Best viewed by everyone",
> A logo with a yellow or light blue or pale green background
> would be more appealing on various bright backgrounds. I also
> think that the grey logo is too dark and difficult to red,
> and the pink logo is quite strange.
>
> The red of the checkmark should contrast more by using
> asaturat
Theodore Smith wrote:
> My first reaction, is that the logos don't look like they compare to
> other logos in terms of style. For example "Mac OSX" logos, XML logos,
> and that generally do look more snazzy.
They were loosely modelled on the W3C HTML validation logo, which
is comparable, in som
m: "Theodore H. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)
>
> My first reaction, is that the logos don't look like they compare to
> other logos in terms of style.
My first reaction, is that the logos don't look like they compare to
other logos in terms of style. For example "Mac OSX" logos, XML logos,
and that generally do look more snazzy.
My second reaction is that I hope I haven't annoyed anyone.
My third was that I probably ought to say it anyhow. Ma
49 matches
Mail list logo
