<Peter_Constable at sil dot org> wrote: >> and clearly >> not designed to be used on the web. >> Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it >> requires proprietary fonts to display them. > > I think that is overly restrictive. (And if the requirements for the > "savvy" logo are changed to rule out use of PUA, then I could imagine > wanting to join WO in requesting a Unicode-with-PUA logo. But I'd > rather not have to go there.)
I attached the Savvy logo to my pages that contain PUA characters (and little else) without a second thought. Indeed, Unicode PUA characters *must* be encoded in Unicode, and so would seem especially Savvy! For them what cares: to view the pages, start at <http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ewellic.html> and follow the links just below the text "Three sample texts are now available." The "prior agreement" is that the user must have James Kass's Code2000 font installed. WARNING: don't do this if you don't care about "constructed" or "invented" scripts. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
