> I suppose you could debate how widespread its use is, but I have to agree
> that the copyleft character does not seem like a private-use character.
I agree, and indicated privately to Werner that it would be appropriate
to fill out a Proposal Summary Form for this beastie, if he can turn up
evidence of printed usage of the symbol in question.
> If people are really using it, it seems like it should be officially
There is no question that people are using the *concept* of copyleft.
See, in particular, the Copyleft group under http://copyleft.net/ for a
nice collection of Copyleft paraphenalia, including T-shirts and hats
with the copyleft symbol, along with assorted penguins and other Linux
and C geek icons.
So there is also no question the symbol exists and is used. And Werner
has indicated that it is in some easily available fonts. I think all
we are missing is some indication of its use in more-or-less conventional
printed typography as a character on a par with the copyright symbol.
> Not knowing anything about it, I would guess there are probably
> more people using it than some of the other characters that *have* been
> encoded. :-)
> Deborah Goldsmith
> on 5/8/2000 4:52 PM, John O'Conner <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Aren't private-use characters to be used within relatively small,
> > well-contained organizations? ...hence the "private" in "private-use".
> > The copyleft idea, and now the copyleft character, will be used by a very
> > large number of people, or will at least be viewed by potentially many,
> > many people...with some people being part of the same organization, but
> > most coming from different ones. This would require different people around
> > the world to agree upon the code point of the character, which makes it a
> > quasi-standard, which seems exactly opposite the purpose of private-use
> > characters.
> > Just stirring up dust,
> > John O'Conner
> > Markus Scherer wrote:
> >> sounds to me like a private-use character, similar to the apple symbol.
> >> markus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT