Re: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)

From: Edward H Trager (
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 17:26:30 EDT

  • Next message: Rick McGowan: "Re: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)"

    > "J Do" <> 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 another.


    > On Wed, 28 May 2003, John Hudson wrote:
    > So before critiquing the design of the logo -- ugly though it is --, or
    > redesigning it, I think it would be a good idea to clarify the purpose of
    > the exercise.
    > John Hudson

    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 Unicode to your web page visitors.

    The criteria for displaying the logo seem to me to be stated in a fairly
    clear manner on

     * Each such page must be encoded in UTF-8 or other valid encoding
       form of Unicode.

     * Each such page must be validated with the W3C HTML validator to
       ensure that the UTF-8 or other encoding of the pages is valid. (If the
       W3C validator does not complain that the encoding of the page is invalid,
       then you can still display the logo even if you have other unrelated HTML
       validation errors on your pages.)

     * The logos must be used with a hyperlink that points to our web site,

    The only thing I question a little bit is the second rule above that
    says that you can still display the Unicode logo even if your page has
    unrelated HTML validation errors. I would favor a stricter rule that says
    you have to clean up all of your W3C validation errors first, and then you
    can display the logo. Nothing wrong with holding people to a higher
    standard, right? (Actually, this will force me to clean up my own pages

    Herbert Elbrecht's addition of "UTF-8" to the logo design I submitted
    earlier today is IMO a good answer to the logo problem. And of
    course, if the encoding is not UTF-8 but some other Unicode encoding, then
    one could modify the logo accordingly. I've taken the liberty of modifying
    Herbert's logo so that it now occupies only 1.1 Kb instead of the 5 Kb of
    the original: the 1.1 Kb version is attached.

    > Herbert Elbrecht wrote:
    > Hi -
    > why not just call it by name:
    > [ Part 2, Image/PNG 7.5KB. ]
    > [ Cannot display this part. Press "V" then "S" to save in a file. ]
    > [ Part 3: "Attached Text" ]
    > all else is self-evident, right?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 18:18:53 EDT