Cordpork -- I think that your way of doing things, all "rules" aside, would make for the most visually "copasetic" sentence.

For the visually inclined (I realize that imagining this makes it a little more difficult):



BTW, one client *informed* me that #2 was the way this was to be done, come hell or high water. I respectfully declined.

Any other thoughts are appreciated.

CP

The logical rule would be to never break the symbol from the item for which it is the trademark. So perhaps my previous statement shows me as a designer and not a communicator. Hmm. So perhaps I'll modify that last statement. Otherwise, it might look as if the period is part of that which is trademarked.

I think it is incorrect to separate the ™ from the
Acme with a period intervening. No matter what. The
implication in your approach (both 1 and 3 in your
example) is that the entire sentence (or at least the
clause "call Acme") is the trademark.

I would set the sentence order as Acme™., then
kern the period under the ™, but not so far as
your #3 example. This way, also, your text is not
"broken" when repurposed into an environment
without kerning.

That's my opinion as a designer, typographer, and editor.

>Crazy dedicated typographers do the
same with quotes over periods.

Crazy dedicated typographers who use well crafted
fonts shouldn't have to, as the quote-period kern pair
should be present in a good font. I also include kerns
for period-quote in my fonts. I have not, however,
heretofore built a kern pair for trademark-period.
But perhaps I will include it from here on out. (And,
I suppose, period-trademark as well, just in case.)

-- K.

I am much less concerned with implying that a period or an entire sentence is part of the trademark than I am with that lonely period floating off by itself!

In general, I would pull the TM much closer to the word Acme than you have in any of the examples shown, CP. Then I would tuck the period in so that it would match any other e. combination.

I'm more concerned with the flow of the sentence as it is read. The TM is going to be ignored by the reader, so I try to make it as inconspicuous as possible while still meeting the legal requirements of the corporation.

JMHO

>Bravo Kent. I hope we've created a new type design
standard here in this very conversation.

Hmm. I recognize now that my idea of building this into
the font is problematic. Such an extreme kern of the
period under the ™ will pull the following spaceband
and subsequent letters up tight. This won't work.
(Except maybe with an OT contextual table or something.)

I must admit that from a practical standpoint, setting
the period first is more effective. I still don't like the
idea of breaking the underlying text.

And I agree with Kristin, I'd like to see the ™ at
least as close to the preceding word as the period, so
that, if anything, they seem to occupy the same space,
with neither character before or after the other.

My revised opinion.

-- K.

The best reference is your own eye. What looks best? Which
method conveys meaning without distraction? I usually
kern the period so the "TM" is above the period and still
close to the "Acme". Crazy dedicated typographers do the
same with quotes over periods.

I have not, however, heretofore built a kern pair for
trademark-period. But perhaps I will include it from here
on out.

Bravo Kent. I hope we've created a new type design
standard here in this very conversation.

There are some work arounds:

_ Have them rewrite the sentence

_ Use the TM earlier or elsewhere in the document/piece