Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd > > lose that in ASCII).... > > Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of > "conspicuous" as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
It's better, indeed. The US UCC conspicuous test s2-103.1.b is essentially Conspicuous terms include the following: (i) for a person: (A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and (B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language; and Heading in capitals. Not the whole damn thing. And setting it off by symbols is also fine. Actually, I don't see how putting the whole thing in capitals satisfies (B), so I guess that relies on the court judgement quoted. That judgement gives some examples of what that court will regard as acceptable - it does not say those are the only ways to do it. Also, you've been warned now that it will be less conspicuous, there are any number of references available about the difficulty of reading long SHOUTs, and the FSF's experts concluded there was no good reason for it. It's not like anyone involved in this thread can plead it's the best way they knew to be conspicuous any more. Hope that encourages a readable warranty, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
