The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Mark E. Shoulson mark at
Sun Nov 6 13:17:02 CST 2016

On 11/04/2016 05:02 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem. Unicode would not be
>> creating anything in Klingon anyway!
> Well, to be fair, I thought IPR was the primary reason Unicode had never
> encoded the Apple logo either. I doubt that whether Unicode intended to
> use such a character themselves was a factor. (Of course, users who
> really wanted that character encoded are probably using �� or ��
> now.)
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |

The Apple logo is just that: a logo.  Unicode is/used to be explicitly 
NOT in the business of encoding logos, and only peripherally in the 
business of encoding cute Wingdings and icons.  pIqaD is an *alphabet* 
for writing a *language*; that's a whole different situation, and one 
that is squarely in what Unicode is all about doing.  "Should" the Apple 
logo have been encoded?  Possibly, though there are a lot of reasons not 
to which do not depend specifically on IP (we'd have to encode all the 
other emblems of all the other computer companies also... not to mention 
gasoline companies, cereal companies...) Should pIqaD be encoded?  It is 
my claim that it should, and that reasons not to are (mainly) limited to 
IP considerations.  In which case, IP considerations need to be 
addressed, yes, but they should not pre-determine the decision of 
whether or not it's worthy of inclusion.


More information about the Unicode mailing list