> I don't get this, ™ is the unicode character 2122, not ASCII. I agree > it could be generated on a MS-DOS pretty much any byte sequence could > be, but I doubt even DOS 6.22 had unicode support, so you would have to > translate it to a code page reprisentation and load the correct fonts. You're right. It's U+2122. Nonetheless, it's also extended ASCII 153, and many DOS programs easily used that to display a ™. I guess that was the "default" code page. MS-DOS never had Unicode support. Neither did any Windows version up to 3.1, NT 3.5, and 95. NT 4 introduced it into the Microsoft sphere in 1996. In 5-6 years--from 1996 to 2001--Windows surpassed Plan 9 in Unicode handling, in all practical aspects. W3C HTML 4.x (and most of previous versions, I guess) and XHTML 1.1 also support it as ™, so it's pretty "standard." You can validate any otherwise valid XHTML document containing it against http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd, and get a pass. --On Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:10 AM +0100 Steve Simon <steve <at> quintile.net> wrote: >> Steve Simon's trademark character, I presume, was generated by >> [Alt]+0153--you call [Alt] an "Option" key, right? > > nope, Alt,T,M > >> Well below 255, it's >> just extended/8-bit ASCII. Not right-to-left, not even out of ISO 8859. >> You could generate that character even on MS-DOS. > > I don't get this, ™ is the unicode character 2122, not ASCII. I agree > it could be generated on a MS-DOS pretty much any byte sequence could > be, but I doubt even DOS 6.22 had unicode support, so you would have to > translate it to a code page reprisentation and load the correct fonts. > > -Steve >