Re: Claims of Conformance (was: Re: CLDR and ICU)

From: Andrew West <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:14:52 +0100

On 27 July 2012 00:42, Ken Whistler <> 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.

Received on Thu Jul 26 2012 - 19:15:53 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jul 26 2012 - 19:15:53 CDT