The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back
kenwhistler at att.net
Tue Nov 15 19:15:58 CST 2016
On 11/15/2016 10:21 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Finally, I really can't understand the reluctance to place anything in
> the roadmap. An entry in the roadmap is not a commitment to anything -
> many scripts listed there face enormous obstacles before they could
> even reach the stage of a well-founded proposal. And, until such a
> proposal exists, there's no formal determination that a script has a
> truly separate identity and meets the bar for encoding.
The barrier to putting it in the roadmap is the that it pIQaD is
currently listed on *not*-the-roadmap:
as Mark Shoulsen has been repeatedly pointing out.
It would be inconsistent to add it to the SMP roadmap unless we delete
it from not-the-roadmap.
And the reason that step has been stuck is because the UTC is still on
record with a nonapproval notice for the Klingon script from 2001.
(Based on Consensus 87-M3.)
So figure it out, folks. First bring to the UTC a proposal to reverse
87-M3. (Not to *encode* pIQaD yet -- just, on the basis of the new, more
mature proposal, to *entertain* appropriate discussion about suitability
for encoding, by rescinding the prior determination of nonapproval.) If
*that* proposal passed, then the nonapproval notice would also be
dropped. If the nonapproval notice is dropped, the not-the-roadmap entry
would be dropped. And if that is dropped, then the Roadmap committee
would dig around for a tentative allocation slot, pending the
determination of outcome for any other issues. Which then could focus on
the next obstacle, which is IP and the unresolved risk of litigation.
In any case, folks should stop with with "Unfair! Unfair!" stuff, and
just set to work, step-by-step, to deal with the items noted above. "A
Klingon is trained to use everything around them to their advantage."
O.k., I've just provided something useful -- go for it. And you won't
even need a cloaking device.
More information about the Unicode