On 27 July 2012 00:42, Ken Whistler <k...@sybase.com> wrote: > > It is a whole nother kettle of fish when somebody says of their product > "This product conforms to the Unicode Standard, Version 6.2.0." There > would be nothing misleading about their use of the Unicode Mark in > such a case -- they are actually referring to the actual standard which > claims the trademark. The reference is not misleading.
Yet such a claim would be "wrong" according to the Trademark Policy page, because they omitted the ® symbol and used the word "conforms" (they should have stated "This product is compliant with the Unicode® Standard, Version 6.2.0."). The page clearly states that any claim of conformance is not allowed to be made if the Unicode Word Mark guidelines are not followed (e.g. omitting the ® after Unicode, or using a verb other than "use", "implement", "support", or "are compliant with"), which implies that any wrongly formulated or formatted claims of conformance are null and void, and should not be accepted by potential users of the product. I am sure we have discussed how stupid this page is on this list before, and I for one refuse in principal to add the ® symbol to Unicode when, for example, I claim conformance to the Unicode 6.1 normalization algorithm for BabelPad. Perhaps people should be wary of using my software because the Unicode Word Mark is misused, but more likely they will think that Unicode's (oops!) trademark policy is a little bit silly. Andrew