From rick at corp.unicode.org Wed Sep 1 17:32:34 2021 From: rick at corp.unicode.org (Rick McGowan) Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:32:34 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Early-bird Discount Ends Sept. 3rd for The 45th Internationalization & Unicode Conference (IUC 45) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ?For those who may not have heard... The early-bird sign-up special for IUC45 ends this Friday! Internationalization & Unicode Conference 45. October 13-15, 2021 - Santa Clara, CA U.S.A. *Keynote Speaker* *Gretchen McCulloch (Linguist, Podcaster?& Author)* Join us at IUC 45 as keynote speaker Gretchen McCulloch (WIRED Resident Linguist, Lingthusiasm podcast co-creator & /Because Internet: New Rules of Language/ author)?presents /"Taking Playfulness Seriously - When Character Sets Are Used in Unexpected Ways/." For over 30 years the IUC has been the preeminent event highlighting the latest innovations and best practices of global and multilingual software providers. We invite you to join us in Santa Clara, CA to promote your ideas and experiences working with natural languages, multicultural user interfaces, producing and supporting multinational and multilingual products, linguistic algorithms, applying internationalization across mobile and social media platforms, or advancements in relevant standards. Trained, Tested, Trusted: Understand best practices in process and among teams reliably delivering high-quality global products. Examine how developers build, test?and deploy great global products. Explore technologies for design, localization, multilingual testing, workflow management, and content management. Expert practitioners and industry leaders present detailed recommendations for businesses looking to expand to new international markets and those seeking to improve time to market and cost-efficiency in supporting existing markets. Recent conferences have provided specific advice on designing software for European countries, Latin America, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Middle East?and emerging markets. ???As we continue to navigate our way through COVID-19 protocols, we are starting to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel! With ever-increasing awareness, better understanding, more established community policies, as well as accelerating vaccination efforts, companies are starting to once again plan for 2021 face-to-face events. IUC 45 will be no different. We will continue to monitor the severity of the COVID crisis moving forward and shift to alternate planning if necessary. As for now, the goal is to see everyone face to face in Santa Clara, CA! Please join us October 13-15, 2021 to celebrate 30 years of the Unicode Conference. *Track and Session Topics to Include:* * Architecture * Case Studies * Fonts/Emojis * ICU/CLDR * Internationalization * Language Sustainability * Localization * Scripts GOLD SPONSORS: Adobe Google MEDIA SPONSOR: Multilingual *About The Unicode Consortium* The Unicode?Consortium is a non-profit organization founded to develop, extend and promote use of the Unicode Standard and related globalization standards. The membership of the consortium represents a broad spectrum of corporations and organizations in the computer and information processing industry. Members are: Adobe Systems, Apple, Google, Government of Bangladesh, Government of India, IBM, Microsoft, Monotype Imaging, Oracle, SAP, The Society for Natural Language Technology Research, The University of California (Berkeley), The University of California (Santa Cruz), Yahoo!, plus well over a hundred Associate, Liaison, and Individual members. For more information, please contact the Unicode Consortium . *About the Event Producer* OMG ? is the Event Producer for the Internationalization & Unicode Conferences. OMG is an international, open membership, not-for-profit computer industry standards consortium. OMG Task Forces develop enterprise integration standards for a wide range of technologies and an even wider range of industries. OMG's modeling standards, including the Unified Modeling Language? (UML?) and Model Driven Architecture? (MDA?), enable powerful visual design, execution and maintenance of software and other processes, including IT Systems Modeling and Business Process Management. OMG's middleware standards and profiles are based on the Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA?) and support a wide variety of industries. OMG has offices at 9C Medway Road, PMB 274, Milford, MA 01757 USA. This email may be considered to be commercial email, an advertisement or a solicitation. For more information about OMG, visit us online at https://go.omgprograms.org/e/658223/2021-09-01/4zxdqp/331175860?h=eEno8ZG0qnFyqTeMmbtGT7xggwyPtEfIUTGiGtTAfCw. By accepting this email and not responding with an unsubscribe request, you have consented or "opted in" to receive additional correspondence and promotions from OMG and its associated partners and sponsors. Should you wish to opt-out in the future please visit the subscription center . ?2018 Google LLC All rights reserved. Google and the Google logo are registered trademarks of Google LLC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From A.Schappo at lboro.ac.uk Thu Sep 2 05:06:39 2021 From: A.Schappo at lboro.ac.uk (Andre Schappo) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 10:06:39 +0000 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities Message-ID: Every few years I ask this question and I guess it must now be 4+ years since I last asked it. ?Anyone know of any University, anywhere in the world that teaches Unicode? After all these many years I still have not found such a University. I do mean serious and comprehensive teaching of Unicode. I often find mentions of Unicode in various online teaching materials and often in non Computing/IT subjects. But mentions are not sufficient to give students an appreciation and understanding of Unicode. Mentions do not convey the enormous benefits of Unicode. TIA Andr? Schappo ?.??/KDN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From c933103 at gmail.com Thu Sep 2 08:51:10 2021 From: c933103 at gmail.com (Phake Nick) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 21:51:10 +0800 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are obvious immense benefits of Unicode but in recent years I feel like I have hear more about the downside of using the Unicode system as a tool developed from early era of computing before internet became popular and the use of such system to digitalize the entire world's text, than its benefit, especially in term of things like its principle to unify different glyphs, artifacts caused by historical decisions, among other things. Andre Schappo via Unicode ? 2021?9?2??? ??6:10??? > > Every few years I ask this question and I guess it must now be 4+ years since I last asked it. > > ?Anyone know of any University, anywhere in the world that teaches Unicode? > > After all these many years I still have not found such a University. I do mean serious and comprehensive teaching of Unicode. I often find mentions of Unicode in various online teaching materials and often in non Computing/IT subjects. But mentions are not sufficient to give students an appreciation and understanding of Unicode. Mentions do not convey the enormous benefits of Unicode. > > TIA > > Andr? Schappo > ?.??/KDN From doug at ewellic.org Thu Sep 2 12:30:30 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:30:30 -0600 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Phake Nick wrote: > but in recent years I feel like I have hear more about the downside > of using the Unicode system as a tool developed from early era of > computing before internet became popular and the use of such system > to digitalize the entire world's text, It would be interesting to hear specifically what the "downside" is. Maybe Phake Nick can elaborate, or ask those who are unhappy with Unicode to elaborate. Does the fact that Unicode was originally developed more than 30 years ago (I guess that's the "early era") bother people? How does "before internet became popular" play into this? A universal character set, free from the context-sensitive character set switching used in the JIS X standards, should be an ideal solution for the Internet. Are users in Japan still concerned about Japanese characters requiring 3 bytes in UTF-8 as opposed to 2 bytes in the JIS X standards? Does UTF-8's immunity from cross-site scripting attacks not outweigh this for Web purposes? Do they still want to use out-of-band character-set designators as font selection hints? Are there still objections to CJK unification? And so on. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 2 13:01:34 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 19:01:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <43e665bc.10d6f.17ba7ac5686.Webtop.97@btinternet.com> There are at least two possible classes of downsides to Unicode, one class being the way that The Unicode Standard itself works, and another class being the politics of the way that "The Unicode Consortium", whatever that term means, operates. For example, some time ago I put forward a proposal to use Variation Selector 14 to signal a request for a character to be displayed in italics. The proposal was turned down. Having a character to turn on italics and a character to turn off italics is forbidden because that would make the system stateful. Alright, fine. Yet a proposal to allow characters to be made italic one at a time, so not stateful, is turned down because italics spans a number of characters in a word, a sentence or a paragraph. Yet making characters italic one at a time is how it has worked with metal type for over five hundred years. Always the policy of "use a higher level protocol". All about layers decided decades ago. Decades before many aspects of modern information technology were invented. I accept that having a character to turn on italics and a character to turn off italics as I suggested years ago would make Unicode stateful, I have learned. Yet I put forward a suggestion that resolved that objection and yet suggestion that was stopped, in my opinion unnecessarily because as far as I know the idea could be useful and would be harmless and could be ignored by anyone who did not want to use it. In this and in other ways, "The Unicode Consortium" is restricting progress. William Overington Thursday 2 September 2021 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Doug Ewell via Unicode" To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Cc: "'Phake Nick'" Sent: Thursday, 2021 Sep 2 At 18:30 Subject: RE: Unicode Teaching in Universities Phake Nick wrote: but in recent years I feel like I have hear more about the downside of using the Unicode system as a tool developed from early era of computing before internet became popular and the use of such system to digitalize the entire world's text, It would be interesting to hear specifically what the "downside" is. Maybe Phake Nick can elaborate, or ask those who are unhappy with Unicode to elaborate. Does the fact that Unicode was originally developed more than 30 years ago (I guess that's the "early era") bother people? How does "before internet became popular" play into this? A universal character set, free from the context-sensitive character set switching used in the JIS X standards, should be an ideal solution for the Internet. Are users in Japan still concerned about Japanese characters requiring 3 bytes in UTF-8 as opposed to 2 bytes in the JIS X standards? Does UTF-8's immunity from cross-site scripting attacks not outweigh this for Web purposes? Do they still want to use out-of-band character-set designators as font selection hints? Are there still objections to CJK unification? And so on. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lyratelle at gmx.de Thu Sep 2 15:22:34 2021 From: lyratelle at gmx.de (Dominikus Dittes Scherkl) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:22:34 +0200 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: Am 02.09.21 um 19:30 schrieb Doug Ewell via Unicode: > It would be interesting to hear specifically what the "downside" is. > Does the fact that Unicode was originally developed more than 30 years > ago (I guess that's the "early era") bother people? I would say no. > A universal character set, free from the context-sensitive character set > switching used in the JIS X standards, should be an ideal solution for > the Internet. Yes. > Are users in Japan still concerned about Japanese characters requiring > 3 bytes in UTF-8 as opposed to 2 bytes in the JIS X standards? Maybe. > Does UTF-8's immunity from cross-site scripting attacks not outweigh > this for Web purposes? I would say yes. Compared to what was there before, Unicode is a huge improvement, I would say. But that doesn't mean it has no flaws. After all the other charsets died out, there would be a lot of thing that could be improved if no legacy support or compatibility would be neccessary anymore. Unfortunately (for whatever strange reasons) the old charset have NOT died out so far. It would be good to enforce that a little more! -- Dominikus Dittes Scherkl From richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com Thu Sep 2 16:33:59 2021 From: richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com (Richard Wordingham) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:33:59 +0100 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <20210902223359.5f522486@JRWUBU2> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:30:30 -0600 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > A universal > character set, free from the context-sensitive character set > switching used in the JIS X standards, should be an ideal solution > for the Internet. We've still got glyph set switching. There are a fair few gaps in string encoding as opposed to character encoding (along the lines of understanding every word but none of the sentences). Richard. From pravin at zensoftech.co.in Fri Sep 3 01:15:30 2021 From: pravin at zensoftech.co.in (Pravin Jain) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:45:30 +0530 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I suggest we should have some kind of a model curriculum for Introduction to Unicode as a separate subject. This can be targeted for Undergraduate courses of IT. This can introduce the principles of Unicode standard, the UCD and the CLDR. We can also have another model curriculum for UG courses on languages and literatures. These model curriculum can then be listed on the Unicode website. We could also try to see if this kind of model course could be started on MOOC platforms. Can we work towards this? TIA Pravin On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 3:49 PM Andre Schappo via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > Every few years I ask this question and I guess it must now be 4+ years > since I last asked it. > > ?Anyone know of any University, anywhere in the world that teaches > Unicode? > > After all these many years I still have not found such a University. I do > mean serious and comprehensive teaching of Unicode. I often find mentions > of Unicode in various online teaching materials and often in non > Computing/IT subjects. But mentions are not sufficient to give students an > appreciation and understanding of Unicode. Mentions do not convey the > enormous benefits of Unicode. > > TIA > > Andr? Schappo > ?.??/KDN > -- Pravin Jain (M)+91-9426054269 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From A.Schappo at lboro.ac.uk Fri Sep 3 02:11:02 2021 From: A.Schappo at lboro.ac.uk (Andre Schappo) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 07:11:02 +0000 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Pravin Jain I suggest we should have some kind of a model curriculum for Introduction to Unicode as a separate subject. This can be targeted for Undergraduate courses of IT. This can introduce the principles of Unicode standard, the UCD and the CLDR. Good Idea. Thank you for your clear thinking. I am happy to be involved in this curriculum. We can also have another model curriculum for UG courses on languages and literatures. These model curriculum can then be listed on the Unicode website. Actually, I recently connected the Chinese language, Chinese literature, Unicode and Internet/IT Internationalisation ?. Please see http://schappo.blogspot.com/2021/08/water-margin-domain-names.html http://schappo.blogspot.com/2021/08/dream-of-red-chamber-domain-names.html We could also try to see if this kind of model course could be started on MOOC platforms. Can we work towards this? TIA Pravin On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 3:49 PM Andre Schappo via Unicode > wrote: Every few years I ask this question and I guess it must now be 4+ years since I last asked it. ?Anyone know of any University, anywhere in the world that teaches Unicode? After all these many years I still have not found such a University. I do mean serious and comprehensive teaching of Unicode. I often find mentions of Unicode in various online teaching materials and often in non Computing/IT subjects. But mentions are not sufficient to give students an appreciation and understanding of Unicode. Mentions do not convey the enormous benefits of Unicode. TIA Andr? Schappo ?.??/KDN -- Pravin Jain (M)+91-9426054269 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Fri Sep 3 04:25:00 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 10:25:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <5b680c76.2cdb3.17baaf9c481.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Doug Ewell wrote: > Do they still want to use out-of-band character-set designators as > font selection hints? Can you elaborate on this please? If this were done in Unicode, would that be something like having a "quasi-control character" encoded in Unicode to mean "Please use a Venetian-style font until further notice" or something like that? Or would it be more like having a "quasi-control character" encoded in Unicode to mean "Please use 72 point until further notice"? Or does it mean something else? William Overington Friday 3 September 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ivanpan3 at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 11:07:14 2021 From: ivanpan3 at gmail.com (Ivan Panchenko) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 18:07:14 +0200 Subject: Meaning of U+22B6 and possible mistakes Message-ID: Consider the following character names: ORIGINAL OF (?, U+22B6) IMAGE OF (?, U+22B7) I find ?original? as a noun strange in this context. How about ?origin?, ?domain? or ?source?? However, the only mathematical use of ??? that I found was in the context of zooms as defined in section 1.5 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1033.pdf This work is from 2010, but the character already existed in Unicode 1.0.0, so I am not sure what it was supposed to mean after all. Any hint? Perhaps U+2290 ? SQUARE ORIGINAL OF was supposed to have the same meaning as U+22B6 (why else would it be named this way?). Furthermore: SUBSET OF WITH NOT EQUAL TO (?, U+228A) LESS-THAN BUT NOT EQUAL TO (?, U+2268) SQUARE ORIGINAL OF OR NOT EQUAL TO (?, U+22E5) The first of these names employs the word ?with? to describe how U+228A looks like, the second one employs the word ?but? to describe what U+2268 means. (A bit inconsistent, but fine so far.) In the third one, I find the ?or not equal to? part strange. Would ?BUT not equal to? not be more plausible? Sidenote (not an issue with Unicode): I find it remarkable that while ??? is used to mean ?is less than OR equal to?, we use ??? for ?is a subset of AND not equal to?, which breaks the analogy. I might prefer ???? (with stroke through bottom members) to ??? for this reason. The file bsymbols.mf of amsfonts deviously contains ?cmchar "Subset or not equal to sign"?. Cf. Paul Taylor for a criticism of the use of ??? for the proper subset relation: https://books.google.com/books?id=iSCqyNgzamcC&pg=PA75&q=%22but+strict+inclusion+is+neither+primitive%22 Schr?der (1890) actually used a symbol (in the strict sense) that looked similar to our ??? but went up- and downwards like the less-than sign; I do not advocate reintroducing it either since we also write ??? and ??? (analogously to ??? and ???) with parallel lines. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From markus.icu at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 11:53:17 2021 From: markus.icu at gmail.com (Markus Scherer) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 09:53:17 -0700 Subject: Meaning of U+22B6 and possible mistakes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 9:36 AM Ivan Panchenko via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > Consider the following character names: > > ORIGINAL OF (?, U+22B6) > IMAGE OF (?, U+22B7) > > I find ?original? as a noun strange in this context. How about ?origin?, > ?domain? or ?source?? > https://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Name The Unicode Name property value for any non-reserved code point will not be changed. In particular, once a character is encoded, its name will not be changed. markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marius.spix at web.de Fri Sep 3 12:34:43 2021 From: marius.spix at web.de (Marius Spix) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 19:34:43 +0200 Subject: Meaning of U+22B6 and possible mistakes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20210903193443.546efe31@spixxi> It seems that the symbol U+22B6 has been used first by Joachim Kock from UAB Barcelona Maths Department. He is also using on a website, last modified in 2006, four years before the already mentioned paper ?Polynomial functors and opetopes? had been published.[1] The symbol has been ?borrowed? from other authors, e. g. [2], [3] Maybe Mr. Kock can provide more information about the origin of that character and also answer the other questions. [1] https://mat.uab.cat/~kock/cat/zoom/examples.html [2] http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/Labo/Samuel.Mimram/docs/mimram_optt.pdf [3] https://github.com/ggreif/seminar-opetope (with diamonds instead of circles, though) On Fr, 3 Sep 2021 18:07:14 +0200 Ivan Panchenko via Unicode wrote: > Consider the following character names: > > ORIGINAL OF (?, U+22B6) > IMAGE OF (?, U+22B7) > > I find ?original? as a noun strange in this context. How about > ?origin?, ?domain? or ?source?? However, the only mathematical use of > ??? that I found was in the context of zooms as defined in section > 1.5 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1033.pdf > > This work is from 2010, but the character already existed in Unicode > 1.0.0, so I am not sure what it was supposed to mean after all. Any > hint? Perhaps U+2290 ? SQUARE ORIGINAL OF was supposed to have the > same meaning as U+22B6 (why else would it be named this way?). > > Furthermore: > > SUBSET OF WITH NOT EQUAL TO (?, U+228A) > LESS-THAN BUT NOT EQUAL TO (?, U+2268) > SQUARE ORIGINAL OF OR NOT EQUAL TO (?, U+22E5) > > The first of these names employs the word ?with? to describe how > U+228A looks like, the second one employs the word ?but? to describe > what U+2268 means. (A bit inconsistent, but fine so far.) > > In the third one, I find the ?or not equal to? part strange. Would > ?BUT not equal to? not be more plausible? > > Sidenote (not an issue with Unicode): I find it remarkable that while > ??? is used to mean ?is less than OR equal to?, we use ??? for ?is a > subset of AND not equal to?, which breaks the analogy. I might prefer > ???? (with stroke through bottom members) to ??? for this reason. The > file bsymbols.mf of amsfonts deviously contains ?cmchar "Subset or > not equal to sign"?. Cf. Paul Taylor for a criticism of the use of > ??? for the proper subset relation: > https://books.google.com/books?id=iSCqyNgzamcC&pg=PA75&q=%22but+strict+inclusion+is+neither+primitive%22 > Schr?der (1890) actually used a symbol (in the strict sense) that > looked similar to our ??? but went up- and downwards like the > less-than sign; I do not advocate reintroducing it either since we > also write ??? and ??? (analogously to ??? and ???) with parallel > lines. From c933103 at gmail.com Fri Sep 3 12:58:13 2021 From: c933103 at gmail.com (Phake Nick) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 01:58:13 +0800 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: I would just say I still face problems related to CJK unification day to day. Nowadays to ensure the display of correct glyph, it is necessary to either use IVS or specify the language/font being used to display each characters, but it is not quite possible to do so on many platforms. Like I don't think it is fair to expect an average user to pick the proper IVS or key in the correct language tag while sending a tweet on Twitter or writing their primary school assignment in Notepad or Google Docs or Evernote or Microsoft Words. There won't be enough character count to do so in Twitter anyway. Last time I saw an incorrect CJK glyph due to Han Unification was yesterday, when I search for information about the Chinese city of Xiamen, in Google Japan. Google Japan display result from multiple languages, including results that are written in Simplified Chinese, and since it was Google Japan in Japanese interface, they rendered the Simplified Chinese character for the Chinese city name of Xiamen in the result using Japanese character, which is an incorrect glyph. It doesn't seems realistic to expect anyone in China when they type the name of their city use IVS to prevent the wrong Japanese glyph from appearing. Last time I interacted with a company due to CJK compatibility problem was a few days ago when I ask Freewrite, a typewriter maker, on their products' multilingual support, for example the ability to display the correct Chinese/Japanese glyph in different Chinese or Japanese documents. They provided products which are intented for writers to type wherever they like with minimal distraction, with even the arrow keys being removed as they believe editing can be done sometimes later to increase the efficiency of writing. Their answer to my question was simply that, if you're looking for so many features then our product wouldn't be suitable to you. Last time I encountered a problem with Han unification in input process was last hour on Duolingo. Duolingo now offer language courses in Chinese in both Simplified and Traditional Chinese characters, but due to the nature of Han Unification, they only transliterated the UI between Simplified and Traditional characters, but Han Unification mean they are not discerned during the input, and my only way to complete those Duolingo language course requiring Chinese typing is by using Google's virtual keyboard's Google Translate feature to transliterate my input into the form that Duolingo would accept. Last time I tried and failed in solving Han Unification problem was on OpenStreetMaps. The OpenStreetMaps system record all objects in the world, from oceans and continents, to individual streets and shops and buildings and even individual lamppost in a park, by letting users type their name in " name=* ", and the name is supposed to be the locally used name in local language. By using this information, OpenStreetMap project is able to create a map for the world using only knowledge from its contributor, but nowhere in the process it specify any language tag and nowhere in the process it help indicate which language the name is. There are also " name:langcode=* ", but that's considered a way to input foreign translation to the local name of a local object, and there are also proposal to solve the problem by specifying language used by name of each object, but of course no one is going to do that for all the lamp post around the world. There are also proposal to assume different languages being used in the name according to national boundary, but that doesn't solve cases like intentional use of foreign language when naming a place. Last time I was saved by Han Unification was when some Chinese users tried to create some Japanese posters, faking their products as from Japan, but due to their system being not Japanese and thus the font being used isn't Japanese, I was able to discern those are not authentic Japanese products. I have also remember, there are some professional text reading/editing tool, in an attempt to decide how punctuation should be positioned, by looking at whether the last character in the line is kana or kanji, and apply the Japanese or Chinese rule of punctuation positioning accordingly, despite Japanese sentences could also end with kanji, and that result in punctuation being floated around different corners in line throughout the entire article. And there are also quite a number of tools, or even fonts, trying to do simple Simplified and Traditional Chinese conversion by mapping characters to each others. As the Unicode system cannot inherently tell apart whether a character is a Chinese character or a Japanese Kanji, those system resulted in a large amount of mistransliterated Japanese content floating around the internet. An alternative to Han Unification could be using a multilingual panel for each East Asian language. It could also help solve the problem related to the disappearance of old glyphs as a result of adaption of national standard font as with IVS being hard to use for most regular user, most people opt to use language tagging to make sure their content are displayed properly, and that also push fontmakers into making fonts with glyphs that are in comfort with national standard because part of the language tagging system involve code for nations, and sometimes that might not actually match what glyph people want. And then a deeper problem with Unicode Han Unification is, due to how convenient and how global it is for simple day to day use when the important part is the content and even with sometimes there are mistakes and errors they mostly function somewhat appropriately and wouldn't give you something completely broken, there are very low need for a new encoding system, but by the time Unicode emerge it was already being seen that character-based encoding system isn't really a proper way to encode Chinese characters, effectively terminating any creation of new characters that would occur naturally in the process of language usage. In analog era anyone can just write a new characters in ways they desire and spread it around, and if the usage picked up then it would become part of the language, but it's impossible to do the same through Unicode. To get a new Chinese character into Unicode, one would first need to submit application to their national government then to the council for Unihan, and wait for it to be included in Unicode CJK Extension, wait for font adding support for such character in new code point, and then wait for new font to be distributed through operation system update or be ship together with new device, a process which would take a decade in fortunate case if OS vendors are willing to add such glyph into their system default font. It also create an infinitely growing list of characters. A component-based system, like Korean Hangul being encoded in decomposed form, could have mitigated such problem, but the ideographic description characters aren't really up to the task and no system actually treat those description characters as a way for user to actually combine and form new characters. Doug Ewell ? 2021?9?3??? ??1:30??? > > Phake Nick wrote: > > > but in recent years I feel like I have hear more about the downside > > of using the Unicode system as a tool developed from early era of > > computing before internet became popular and the use of such system > > to digitalize the entire world's text, > > It would be interesting to hear specifically what the "downside" is. Maybe Phake Nick can elaborate, or ask those who are unhappy with Unicode to elaborate. > > Does the fact that Unicode was originally developed more than 30 years ago (I guess that's the "early era") bother people? How does "before internet became popular" play into this? A universal character set, free from the context-sensitive character set switching used in the JIS X standards, should be an ideal solution for the Internet. > > Are users in Japan still concerned about Japanese characters requiring 3 bytes in UTF-8 as opposed to 2 bytes in the JIS X standards? Does UTF-8's immunity from cross-site scripting attacks not outweigh this for Web purposes? > > Do they still want to use out-of-band character-set designators as font selection hints? Are there still objections to CJK unification? And so on. > > -- > Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org > > From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Fri Sep 3 16:47:51 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:47:51 -0700 Subject: Meaning of U+22B6 and possible mistakes In-Reply-To: <20210903193443.546efe31@spixxi> References: <20210903193443.546efe31@spixxi> Message-ID: <151ec525-70e0-de23-9f70-7aeffe2db0b0@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp Sun Sep 5 18:43:37 2021 From: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?=) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 08:43:37 +0900 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Hello Doug, others, On 2021-09-03 02:30, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > Phake Nick wrote: > >> but in recent years I feel like I have hear more about the downside >> of using the Unicode system as a tool developed from early era of >> computing before internet became popular and the use of such system >> to digitalize the entire world's text, > > It would be interesting to hear specifically what the "downside" is. Maybe Phake Nick can elaborate, or ask those who are unhappy with Unicode to elaborate. I'll answer Nick's complaints separately. > Does the fact that Unicode was originally developed more than 30 years ago (I guess that's the "early era") bother people? How does "before internet became popular" play into this? A universal character set, free from the context-sensitive character set switching used in the JIS X standards, should be an ideal solution for the Internet. Both the Internet and Unicode became popular more or less during the same time, with mutual synergies. They were both created with a global, long-term outlook. > Are users in Japan still concerned about Japanese characters requiring 3 bytes in UTF-8 as opposed to 2 bytes in the JIS X standards? Not really. These days, video uses much more memory, so memory for text is usually not a concern. Terabytes are cheap. > Does UTF-8's immunity from cross-site scripting attacks not outweigh this for Web purposes? There are a lot of other advantages of Unicode/UTF-8 that outweigh this, not only for Web purposes. > Do they still want to use out-of-band character-set designators as font selection hints? Are there still objections to CJK unification? And so on. People in Japan are very pragmatic. Unicode works, and so they don't see any reasons to complain or object. The fear that "Unicode will destroy Japanese kanji", spread in the 1990 by some, clearly hasn't come true (as quite some people knew already then). Regards, Martin. From A.Schappo at lboro.ac.uk Mon Sep 6 04:37:38 2021 From: A.Schappo at lboro.ac.uk (Andre Schappo) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 09:37:38 +0000 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Message-ID: Thanks to Sudhanwa Jogalekar https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-eai/2021-September/001435.html I have learned that Unicode is core to teaching at Symbiosis Institute of Computer Studies and Research https://sicsr.ac.in/ Andr? Schappo https://?.??/water -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sudhanwa.com at gmail.com Mon Sep 6 11:32:05 2021 From: sudhanwa.com at gmail.com (Sudhanwa Jogalekar) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 22:02:05 +0530 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi, Karunakar is one of the main person behind the work mentioned in the thread. @Karunakar Guntupalli , can you please respond? Thanks -Sudhanwa On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 3:12 PM Andre Schappo via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > > Thanks to Sudhanwa Jogalekar > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-eai/2021-September/001435.html I have > learned that Unicode is core to teaching at Symbiosis Institute of Computer > Studies and Research https://sicsr.ac.in/ > > Andr? Schappo > https://?.??/water > > > -- ~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~! web: www.sudhanwa.com blog: www.sudhanwa.in Twitter: sudhanwa Check on FB, Linkedin for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug at ewellic.org Mon Sep 6 23:34:50 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2021 22:34:50 -0600 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Message-ID: <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> Martin J. D?rst wrote: >> Do they still want to use out-of-band character-set designators as >> font selection hints? Are there still objections to CJK unification? >> And so on. > > People in Japan are very pragmatic. Unicode works, and so they don't > see any reasons to complain or object. The fear that "Unicode will > destroy Japanese kanji", spread in the 1990 by some, clearly hasn't > come true (as quite some people knew already then). It would appear, then, that Phake Nick is an outlier, as he (not some unnamed people he has heard from) does seem to have issues with CJK unification, and feels that glyph encoding, or at least separate encoding of "Chinese characters" and "Japanese characters," as the ISO 2022-based encodings provided, would be preferable. I won't try to go through his entire reply, but here are some selected comments. First and foremost, https://www.unicode.org/faq/han_cjk.html . The FAQ on Chinese and Japanese reflects what has been agreed upon by numerous experts in China and Japan, as well as experts in the writing systems who live elsewhere. In short, there is wide agreement that differences in preferred font styles do not constitute differences in character identity. Ninety-five percent of Phake Nick's post is about preferred font styles. Unicode is a character encoding, JUST LIKE the GB and CNS (Chinese) and JIS (Japanese) encodings. NONE of these is an encoding of glyphs. The only difference is that people used to use character-set signaling ? in-band or out-of-band ? as a hint to display text in a Chinese-type or Japanese-type font. (It had nothing to do with explicit selection of font styles or sizes via "quasi-control characters," whatever those are.) With a universal character set, it is no longer possible to overload character encoding as language tagging or font selection. It is true that you can't tell, with no context, whether a given Unicode code point represents a "Chinese character" or a "Japanese character." As the FAQ says, "It's the equivalent of asking if 'a' is an English letter or a French one" or whether "chat" is an English word or a French one. If you really need language tagging, to choose a font or render punctuation or perform spell-checking or text-to-speech or some other process, then use language tagging. It is not at all true that Han unification erases a distinction between simplified and traditional characters which other encodings preserved, or that Unicode discards mappings between simplified and traditional which other encodings provided. I must have misunderstood those passages. > In analog era anyone can just write a new characters in ways they > desire and spread it around, and if the usage picked up then it would > become part of the language, but it's impossible to do the same > through Unicode. Nor through any of the Chinese or Japanese national standards. This is a fact of life with standardized character sets in general, and has nothing to do with Han unification. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Tue Sep 7 05:04:29 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:04:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities Message-ID: <72019e5a.34043.17bbfb757d7.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Doug Ewell wrote: > (It had nothing to do with explicit selection of font styles or sizes > via "quasi-control characters," whatever those are.) Actually, it was me who used the phrase "quasi-control character". https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009549.html I know hardly anything about CJK encoding, I am trying to learn. A quasi-control character would be a character that is encoded as an ordinary text character and could be displayed using a glyph. However, it could also (or instead) be used by a software system as a control character if that is what the end user prefers and he or she has such a software system available. For example, there could be a quasi-control character which has a displayable glyph of a capital A and a capital G arranged in pale with the A above the G, all within a portrait-orientation rectangle, with a meaning of "Alphanumerics Green" which could be used in a Unicode plain text representation of a teletext page (that is, the teletext page being in English, French, German etc, I am not referring to a quasi-control character for CJK in this example). So in many uses the glyph would be displayed and would provide to the human reader an indication of the intended display. In a specialist software application the quasi-control character could be used such that the subsequent text is displayed in green and a space displayed for the quasi-control character rather than the glyph being displayed. So I am simply wondering whether use of a quasi-control character for indicating the difference in the font style would solve the problem that is being discussed in the context of CJK if there is a need for a plain text solution. > If you really need language tagging, to choose a font or render > punctuation or perform spell-checking or text-to-speech or some other > process, then use language tagging. But alas U+E0001 has been deprecated. > https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/UE0000.pdf quote from that document The use of tag characters to convey language tags is stronglydiscouraged. Tag identifiersE0001 ? LANGUAGE TAG ? This character is deprecated, and its use isstrongly discouraged. end quote Should U+E0001 LANGUAGE TAG become undeprecated? >> In analog era anyone can just write a new characters in ways they desire and spread it around, and if the usage picked up then it would become part of the language, but it's impossible to do the same through Unicode. > Nor through any of the Chinese or Japanese national standards. This is > a fact of life with standardized character sets in general, and has > nothing to do with Han unification. Well, there could in theory be introduced a system that could solve that problem, using a technique similar to that which has been proposed for QID emoji, yet a separate system managed directly by Unicode Inc.. Indeed there could be more than one such system, one (or maybe more than one?) for CJK glyphs and another for Latin-style characters and another for other systems. Basically more or less automatic, fairly prompt, registration with only mild moderation by Unicode Inc.. So systems having both the freedoms of the Private Use Areas yet also some of the precision of regular Unicode encoding as regards interoperability. That could be a major step forward in the development and application of Unicode. William Overington Tuesday 7 September 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Tue Sep 7 17:23:00 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 23:23:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <3cfa9ef5.35cf1.17bc25b7bc6.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Doug Ewell wrote as follows: > First and foremost, https://www.unicode.org/faq/han_cjk.html > . Thank you for that link. That is helpful. > Unicode is a character encoding, JUST LIKE the GB and CNS (Chinese) > and JIS (Japanese) encodings. NONE of these is an encoding of glyphs. > The only difference is that people used to use character-set signaling > ? in-band or out-of-band ? as a hint to display text in a Chinese-type > or Japanese-type font. Could someone possibly write about how "character-set signaling ? in-band or out-of-band ? as a hint to display text in a Chinese-type or Japanese-type font" was/is done in the CNS and JIS encodings please? William Overington Tuesday 7 September 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kenwhistler at sonic.net Tue Sep 7 17:56:59 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 15:56:59 -0700 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: <3cfa9ef5.35cf1.17bc25b7bc6.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> <3cfa9ef5.35cf1.17bc25b7bc6.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Message-ID: William It wasn't done *in* the CNS and JIS encodings. In other words, if you are looking for some fancy mechanism that was used inside those old legacy encodings to do "signaling", you aren't going to find it. The point Doug was making was that in the old days if you knew (or could detect heuristically) that your data was in the CNS 11643 encoding, well, by gum, it was pretty darn likely that it was data in the Chinese language, and people would prefer to look at it with a Chinese-style font. Contrariwise, if you knew (or could detect heuristically) that your data was in the JIS X 0208 encoding, well, it was pretty darn likely that it was data in the Japanese language, and people would prefer to look at it with a Japanese-style font. This is really no different than knowing (or detecting heuristically) that your data was in the ASMO 449 standard, then it was pretty darn likely that it contained data in the Arabic language, and you'd better have a corresponding Arabic font ready to display it. --Ken On 9/7/2021 3:23 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: > > Could someone possibly write about how "character-set signaling ? > in-band or out-of-band ? as a hint to display text in a Chinese-type > or Japanese-type font" was/is done in the CNS and JIS encodings please? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Tue Sep 7 18:04:55 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 00:04:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> <3cfa9ef5.35cf1.17bc25b7bc6.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <3bcf1786.35d46.17bc281da5c.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Thank you for explaining. William Overington Wednesday 8 September 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 7 23:34:11 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 21:34:11 -0700 Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> <3cfa9ef5.35cf1.17bc25b7bc6.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Wed Sep 8 11:34:57 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:34:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: Unicode Teaching in Universities In-Reply-To: References: <000201d7a020$3aa5a1d0$aff0e570$@ewellic.org> <776b09c9-69ca-88ce-5449-dbeee64453b9@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000001d7a3a1$b2d73770$1885a650$@ewellic.org> <3cfa9ef5.35cf1.17bc25b7bc6.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <3a3e34cc.37a95.17bc643304f.Webtop.110@btinternet.com> Many years ago, around 1990, I devised a scenario to encourage people to learn how to enter words with accented characters in them even if they did not know the language. I called it The Caf? ?pfel and the idea was that text from ingredients lists from multilingual food packaging could be keyed. I had bought a packaged food item in a supermarket and the ingredients list was presented in a number of languages. The Caf? ?pfel would have menus in English, French, German and the language of the musicians and singers who were performing in the caf? that evening. I had this idea of a television show series with each episode combining cookery, computing and music with actors playing the continuing characters and guest musicians and singers arriving as guest stars. Well, a Portuguese band and singer would be fairly straightforward. Once the musicians come from further afield the computing gets rather more complicated! I had the idea of story lines so that one of the staff has to produce the menu cards using a computer and part of each episode has scenes as the staff produce the menus. Though now that Unicode is widely used, this scenario could be a useful way for students to get practical experience of using Unicode in a variety of languages. William Overington Wednesday 8 September 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 9 11:51:10 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 17:51:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: Policy on the lifting of bans Message-ID: <37802f2f.13adc.17bcb786619.Webtop.96@btinternet.com> Document L2/21-155 is interesting. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf Yet how can I apply for removal of the ban of some new characters that I have invented being discussed in this mailing list and for removal of the ban of those new characters being put forward for consideration by the Unicode Technical Committee? The ban was not made by any committee or named official but has been acted upon as if it had been. William Overington Thursday 9 September 2021 From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 9 17:11:31 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:11:31 -0700 Subject: Policy on the lifting of bans In-Reply-To: <37802f2f.13adc.17bcb786619.Webtop.96@btinternet.com> References: <37802f2f.13adc.17bcb786619.Webtop.96@btinternet.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch Mon Sep 13 08:48:12 2021 From: daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch (=?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?=) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:48:12 +0200 Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 LineBreakTest.txt rule 30.22 ? Message-ID: Hello, In the LineBreakTest.txt [0] of 14.0.0 I find this test:? ? ? 1F02C ? 1F3FF ? # ?? [0.3] (Other) ? [30.22] EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE-6 (EM) ? [0.3] That mentions rule 30.22 [1]. To which LB30 rule does that correspond to in the standard ? According to the test numbering scheme I would expect to a second line in LB30b but there's only EB ? EM there [2]. Best,? Daniel [0]:?https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.txt [1]:?https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.html#r30.22 [2]:?https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-46.html#LB30b From mark at macchiato.com Mon Sep 13 09:43:31 2021 From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 07:43:31 -0700 Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 LineBreakTest.txt rule 30.22 ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-47.html Mark (?) On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 06:50 Daniel B?nzli via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > Hello, > > In the LineBreakTest.txt [0] of 14.0.0 I find this test: > > ? 1F02C ? 1F3FF ? # ? [0.3] (Other) ? [30.22] > EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE-6 (EM) ? [0.3] > > That mentions rule 30.22 [1]. > > To which LB30 rule does that correspond to in the standard ? According to > the test numbering scheme I would expect to a second line in LB30b but > there's only EB ? EM there [2]. > > Best, > > Daniel > > [0]: https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.txt > [1]: > https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.html#r30.22 > [2]: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-46.html#LB30b > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kenwhistler at sonic.net Mon Sep 13 09:47:52 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 07:47:52 -0700 Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 LineBreakTest.txt rule 30.22 ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0eac7a07-fcc7-e022-b09e-0acd68235a38@sonic.net> Daniel, You are looking at Version 14.0.0 of the data files, but an outdated proposed update of the annex. The missing rule part is: [\p{Extended_Pictographic}&\p{Cn}] ? EM See Consensus 168-C8 in the minutes from UTC #168: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21123.htm#168-C8 Please be patient for one more day, as the release of all the final text for the annexes is scheduled for tomorrow. --Ken On 9/13/2021 6:48 AM, Daniel B?nzli via Unicode wrote: > Hello, > > In the LineBreakTest.txt [0] of 14.0.0 I find this test: > > ? ? 1F02C ? 1F3FF ? # ?? [0.3] (Other) ? [30.22] EMOJI MODIFIER FITZPATRICK TYPE-6 (EM) ? [0.3] > > That mentions rule 30.22 [1]. > > To which LB30 rule does that correspond to in the standard ? According to the test numbering scheme I would expect to a second line in LB30b but there's only EB ? EM there [2]. > > Best, > > Daniel > > [0]:?https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.txt > [1]:?https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.html#r30.22 > [2]:?https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-46.html#LB30b > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch Mon Sep 13 11:12:17 2021 From: daniel.buenzli at erratique.ch (=?utf-8?Q?Daniel_B=C3=BCnzli?=) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:12:17 +0200 Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 LineBreakTest.txt rule 30.22 ? In-Reply-To: <0eac7a07-fcc7-e022-b09e-0acd68235a38@sonic.net> References: <0eac7a07-fcc7-e022-b09e-0acd68235a38@sonic.net> Message-ID: Ah thank you both for the reference ! ? > [\p{Extended_Pictographic}&\p{Cn}] According to the data in 14.0.0 ucd this defines a subset of the ID line breaking class, that makes it easy for me to support the rule by splitting the ID class internally.? But is that guaranteed to hold in the future ? Could we maybe have a proper line breaking class for it in subsquent versions ? Best,? Daniel [1]: https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/ucd/auxiliary/LineBreakTest.html#r30.22 From mark at kli.org Tue Sep 14 16:31:08 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:31:08 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Message-ID: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> So, pursuant to Ken Whistler's advice from back in https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html, I submitted a request (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf) to have motion 87-M3 rescinded, thereby making it permissible at least to discuss Klingon on its merits. Although a formal response is yet to be recorded, I have been informed that Unicode is declining to rescind its decision, absent some sort of consent from Paramount, etc.? And so I ask again: can someone please tell me what the difference is between Klingon and tengwar (or Cirth, etc) that one has this extra hoop to jump through (getting the decision rescinded) and one doesn't?? As far as I know, tengwar is in the same situation as regards intellectual property.? If I know how they're different, maybe I can see about getting Klingon into line with it so they'll be in the same situation.? Can anyone help me find out what the difference is? ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kenwhistler at sonic.net Tue Sep 14 17:07:35 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:07:35 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> Mark, On 9/14/2021 2:31 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > > So, pursuant to Ken Whistler's advice from back in > https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html, I > submitted a request > (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf) to have > motion 87-M3 rescinded, thereby making it permissible at least to > discuss Klingon on its merits. Note that my advice from 2016 spoke to the issue of *roadmapping* Klingon -- not the issue of discussing it on its merits. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing which prohibits the latter. And in fact you have a fairly recent document in the document register to start that discussion: L2/20-181. All I would suggest is that instead of insisting on trying to find a specific niche in the SMP for it right now, you just adopt the xx00..xxFF convention that is recommended for early proposals, anyway, to disconnect discussion of the merits of encoding from any argument about precisely *where* the allocation might end up. > > > Although a formal response is yet to be recorded, I have been informed > that Unicode is declining to rescind its decision, absent some sort of > consent from Paramount, etc.? And so I ask again: can someone please > tell me what the difference is between Klingon and tengwar (or Cirth, > etc) that one has this extra hoop to jump through (getting the > decision rescinded) and one doesn't? It's pretty straightforward. The encoding of Tengwar and Cirth have not ever been pursued so intently that the UTC was forced to push back with a notice of non-approval (because of unresolved IP issues). Klingon, on the other hand, was a case *both* for IP issues interfering with a potential encoding that was being pushed *and* was an early poster child for what was considered "frivolous" encoding by many participants in SC2 as well as by many senior managers who were paying the salaries of representatives they were sending to UTC meetings. You aren't going to find a distinction by rooting around in the structure of the scripts themselves looking for objective differences, nor by trying to distinguish them by details of IP claims. The issues that matter are found in the social and economic contexts of the encoding activities of the committees and standardizers. --Ken > ? As far as I know, tengwar is in the same situation as regards > intellectual property.? If I know how they're different, maybe I can > see about getting Klingon into line with it so they'll be in the same > situation. Can anyone help me find out what the difference is? > > ~mark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Tue Sep 14 17:52:56 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:52:56 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> Message-ID: On 9/14/21 6:07 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > > Mark, > > On 9/14/2021 2:31 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: >> >> So, pursuant to Ken Whistler's advice from back in >> https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html, I >> submitted a request >> (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf) to have >> motion 87-M3 rescinded, thereby making it permissible at least to >> discuss Klingon on its merits. > > Note that my advice from 2016 spoke to the issue of *roadmapping* > Klingon -- not the issue of discussing it on its merits. There is, as > far as I can tell, nothing which prohibits the latter. And in fact you > have a fairly recent document in the document register to start that > discussion: L2/20-181. All I would suggest is that instead of > insisting on trying to find a specific niche in the SMP for it right > now, you just adopt the xx00..xxFF convention that is recommended for > early proposals, anyway, to disconnect discussion of the merits of > encoding from any argument about precisely *where* the allocation > might end up. > Oh, I'm fine with not knowing where it'll end up.? I'm just trying to proceed to whatever extent is possible, and I understood you to mean that before anything can be done, we have to get 87-M3 rolled back, because until then nobody can even contemplate any progress.? If discussing it on its merits is possible now, I'm certainly all for doing so, and indeed that's why I submitted L2/20-181 (admittedly, hoping that merits were going to be enough, which doesn't appear to be the case.)? That was the discussion I had hoped to have at UTC#164.? Is it something that can be discussed now? Hm.? I probably just copied the codepoints from earlier iterations; I should have switched to the xx00 notation, as you say. >> >> Although a formal response is yet to be recorded, I have been >> informed that Unicode is declining to rescind its decision, absent >> some sort of consent from Paramount, etc.? And so I ask again: can >> someone please tell me what the difference is between Klingon and >> tengwar (or Cirth, etc) that one has this extra hoop to jump through >> (getting the decision rescinded) and one doesn't? > > It's pretty straightforward. The encoding of Tengwar and Cirth have > not ever been pursued so intently that the UTC was forced to push back > with a notice of non-approval (because of unresolved IP issues). > Klingon, on the other hand, was a case *both* for IP issues > interfering with a potential encoding that was being pushed *and* was > an early poster child for what was considered "frivolous" encoding by > many participants in SC2 as well as by many senior managers who were > paying the salaries of representatives they were sending to UTC meetings. > Mm.? So, victim of its own success, then (in the sense of vigorous pursuit of encoding while Tolkien scripts didn't have such advocacy (because they didn't need it, being sort of presumed suitable for encoding.))? And I'll admit it straight out: Tolkien scripts, IMO, deserve encoding more than Klingon does.? But that doesn't mean one needs to wait for the other.? (That's my subjective opinion, and I don't think it can count as an answer to my question about what the difference in treatment is based on.) The "early poster child for what was considered 'frivolous' encoding" is (obviously) the label I am most eager to shed, and I hope to hear at least some recognition of non-frivolity or else non-recognition of frivolity (or failing that, *reasonable* arguments and debate on the subject.)? Perhaps that's part of why repealing 87-M3 would seem so important.? It wouldn't really move things closer to encoding, but it would lift the stigma of being singled out as "too frivolous," even though the ostensible reason given for 87-M3 was lack of usage. Which I guess brings things back full-circle.? If the reason for 87-M3 is no longer valid, why refuse to rescind it? > You aren't going to find a distinction by rooting around in the > structure of the scripts themselves looking for objective differences, > nor by trying to distinguish them by details of IP claims. The issues > that matter are found in the social and economic contexts of the > encoding activities of the committees and standardizers. > Isn't that kind of embarrassing for an organization that claims/aspires to some measure of cultural neutrality and support for minority cultures? ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kenwhistler at sonic.net Tue Sep 14 18:18:50 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:18:50 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> Message-ID: <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> On 9/14/2021 3:52 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > > Which I guess brings things back full-circle.? If the reason for 87-M3 > is no longer valid, why refuse to rescind it? > Well, the short answer is that "removing the stigma on Klingon" is apparently not a sufficient priority for most UTC participants for them to bother with it. Plus, some people will worry that formally rescinding a notice of non-approval will be viewed precisely as what you are intending it as: a signal that the UTC is getting ready to consider encoding Klingon. Many would prefer to just let this sit unless and until a case could be made that Klingon actually *is* ready for encoding (and justified and IP-unencumbered). In any case, my advice is to stop worrying about the status in the roadmap, and work instead on making the convincing case for encoding. I realize that honor is of high value in Klingon society, but it doesn't actually figure that much in UTC decisions. ;-) >> You aren't going to find a distinction by rooting around in the >> structure of the scripts themselves looking for objective >> differences, nor by trying to distinguish them by details of IP >> claims. The issues that matter are found in the social and economic >> contexts of the encoding activities of the committees and standardizers. >> > Isn't that kind of embarrassing for an organization that > claims/aspires to some measure of cultural neutrality and support for > minority cultures? > Hardly. It is basically a fact that character encoding is a human activity engaged in by groups of people who are influenced by their social and economic contexts. Failure to recognize that sometimes flummoxes folks who don't understand why the committees make some of the decisions they do, on occasion. But I don't see how you draw the connection here immediately to concerns for cultural neutrality and support for minority cultures. --Ken From mark at kli.org Tue Sep 14 18:41:04 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:41:04 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> Message-ID: <766e5a6b-587f-7083-2730-e21d0405fc77@shoulson.com> On 9/14/21 7:18 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > > On 9/14/2021 3:52 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: >> >> Which I guess brings things back full-circle.? If the reason for >> 87-M3 is no longer valid, why refuse to rescind it? >> > Well, the short answer is that "removing the stigma on Klingon" is > apparently not a sufficient priority for most UTC participants for > them to bother with it. Plus, some people will worry that formally > rescinding a notice of non-approval will be viewed precisely as what > you are intending it as: a signal that the UTC is getting ready to > consider encoding Klingon. Many would prefer to just let this sit > unless and until a case could be made that Klingon actually *is* ready > for encoding (and justified and IP-unencumbered). *Sigh*.? I guess that's a fair answer, more's the pity.? I have fun mocking the decision with "Is Unicode really worried Paramount will sue them for not saying no?? Shouldn't they be careful to say no to all those other scripts out there?"? But it's true: rescinding rejection is not the same as not rejecting. > In any case, my advice is to stop worrying about the status in the > roadmap, and work instead on making the convincing case for encoding. > I realize that honor is of high value in Klingon society, but it > doesn't actually figure that much in UTC decisions. ;-) Tolkien scripts are roadmapped anymore either; it wasn't about the roadmap in the sense of being allocated a spot.? It's about not being NOT on the roadmap, which isn't the same. > >>> You aren't going to find a distinction by rooting around in the >>> structure of the scripts themselves looking for objective >>> differences, nor by trying to distinguish them by details of IP >>> claims. The issues that matter are found in the social and economic >>> contexts of the encoding activities of the committees and >>> standardizers. >>> >> Isn't that kind of embarrassing for an organization that >> claims/aspires to some measure of cultural neutrality and support for >> minority cultures? >> > Hardly. It is basically a fact that character encoding is a human > activity engaged in by groups of people who are influenced by their > social and economic contexts. Failure to recognize that sometimes > flummoxes folks who don't understand why the committees make some of > the decisions they do, on occasion. But I don't see how you draw the > connection here immediately to concerns for cultural neutrality and > support for minority cultures. In https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0086.html, Asmus writes about the original decision: > PS: the "real" reason that Klingon was never put in the roadmap (as I > recall discussions in the early years) was not so much the question > whether IP issues existed/could be resolved, but the fear that adding > such an "invented" and "frivolous" script would undermine the > acceptance of Unicode. which basically amounts to "we didn't want to be associated with those kinds of people/scripts."? Is that really an argument that a purportedly neutral organization could use?? Can you imagine if it had been said about Yezidi, or Adlam, or Mandombe?? That's what "social and economic contexts" sounded like; perhaps unfairly interpreted. ~mark From jameskass at code2001.com Tue Sep 14 18:41:24 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 23:41:24 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> Message-ID: <40769a94-e469-1d17-faf6-425fa3420bba@code2001.com> On 2021-09-14 11:18 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > In any case, my advice is to stop worrying about the status in the > roadmap, and work instead on making the convincing case for > encoding. I realize that honor is of high value in Klingon society, > but it doesn't actually figure that much in UTC decisions. ;-) That's a pity, really.? But it's been evident since emoji was accepted. >>> ... >> Isn't that kind of embarrassing for an organization that >> claims/aspires to some measure of cultural neutrality and >> support for minority cultures? > Hardly. It is basically a fact that character encoding is a human > activity engaged in by groups of people who are influenced by > their social and economic contexts. Failure to recognize that > sometimes flummoxes folks who don't understand why the > committees make some of the decisions they do, on occasion. > But I don't see how you draw the connection here immediately > to concerns for cultural neutrality and support for minority > cultures. Because the reality that people are influenced by their economic desires, such as funding or paychecks, negates the possibility of neutrality. From markus.icu at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 18:56:29 2021 From: markus.icu at gmail.com (Markus Scherer) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:56:29 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <40769a94-e469-1d17-faf6-425fa3420bba@code2001.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <40769a94-e469-1d17-faf6-425fa3420bba@code2001.com> Message-ID: I have not been following the status of Klingon encoding closely, but it seems like a few things have changed since the early days: - we have decisively moved beyond the BMP, and are now at nearly 145k assigned characters - we have encoded, and then greatly expanded, emoji, for which many of us (including some early proposers) where "holding our noses" This suggests to me that we have a slightly lower bar for "invented" and "frivolous" characters than 20 years ago. (Although, usage for Klingon is magnitudes lower than where usage of emoji was even before adding them in Unicode 6.) markus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 14 19:29:33 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:29:33 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> Message-ID: <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Tue Sep 14 19:45:44 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 17:45:44 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <40769a94-e469-1d17-faf6-425fa3420bba@code2001.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug at ewellic.org Wed Sep 15 00:04:52 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 23:04:52 -0600 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> First, congratulations on the release of Unicode 14.0, the first new release since the pandemic in the Western Hemisphere began, if we can even imagine that. Asmus Freytag wrote: > Strong evidence of widespread use and strong evidence that can support > the supposition that this use will not be a flash in the pan, but > continue for decades. U+1FAF6 HEART HANDS I don't believe UTC could approve a more frivolous and flash-in-the-pan character if it tried. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 00:29:32 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 22:29:32 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jameskass at code2001.com Wed Sep 15 01:19:41 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 06:19:41 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <70401214-6b6a-9ceb-5006-5d5bf3a1f075@code2001.com> On 2021-09-15 5:29 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > I don't have an opinion on individual characters, but the death of emoji has > been prognosticated many times. I personally don't think we are at or even past > "peak emoji" quite yet (in terms of overall usage, that is). However, it would > be interesting to see whether anyone has bothered to collect data. The thrill some people get from sending clip art in plain text doesn't seem likely to fade away any time soon. > ... > > The per-character frequencies of any pictographic writing system always have a > long tail. That's why looking at any one member of such a system always allows > you to find examples that are "never used". That doesn't tell you anything about > the writing system itself, and if you accept the need to support one, then > you'll inevitably pick up some of the tail; that's as it should be. This is true of any /de facto/ pictographic writing system, which excludes emoji.? FAICT there aren't any Han enthusiasts being employed to "think up new ones" in the hope that they'll catch on. Emoji proponents might be the most likely to bother to run any kind of character frequency analysis.? If such analyses disagree with their usage projections, IMO emoji proponents would be least likely to publish those results. Getting back to the subject thread, if Tengwar had been on the "Not the Roadmap" page and a more robust proposal had been submitted (along with the passage of time and a shifting of attitudes), would it be necessary for the proposer to make a separate request for Tengwar to be removed from the "Not..." page -- or would the Consortium remove it from that page as a matter of course upon considering the newer proposal? From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 01:54:23 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 23:54:23 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <70401214-6b6a-9ceb-5006-5d5bf3a1f075@code2001.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> <70401214-6b6a-9ceb-5006-5d5bf3a1f075@code2001.com> Message-ID: <9edd1f9b-e5af-49d3-3f9d-97a4e9007fec@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp Wed Sep 15 02:28:19 2021 From: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?=) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:28:19 +0900 Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 (was: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar) In-Reply-To: <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <9abca6b2-9406-a1bf-25cc-3cd765b1e2ed@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Hello Doug, others, On 2021-09-15 14:04, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > First, congratulations on the release of Unicode 14.0, the first new release since the pandemic in the Western Hemisphere began, if we can even imagine that. The official announcement is at https://home.unicode.org/announcing-the-unicode-standard-version-14-0/. But one of the links points to http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts-14.0/emoji-counts.html, which as of this wringing has a big red beta in its title (Emoji Counts, v14.0? For the current released version, see v13.1.). Also, the official announcement doesn't point to the version of the standard itself (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/). I also miss announcements sent out by mail. Maybe we can blame this on California's recall election :-? Regards, ? Martin. > Asmus Freytag wrote: > >> Strong evidence of widespread use and strong evidence that can support >> the supposition that this use will not be a flash in the pan, but >> continue for decades. > > U+1FAF6 HEART HANDS > > I don't believe UTC could approve a more frivolous and flash-in-the-pan character if it tried. > > -- > Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org > From jameskass at code2001.com Wed Sep 15 04:18:21 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:18:21 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <9edd1f9b-e5af-49d3-3f9d-97a4e9007fec@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> <70401214-6b6a-9ceb-5006-5d5bf3a1f075@code2001.com> <9edd1f9b-e5af-49d3-3f9d-97a4e9007fec@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On 2021-09-15 6:54 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > The key words here are "robust proposal". > > A robust proposal with strong new evidence and good and complete answers to > earlier objections is the key thing to overcoming any hurdles to acceptance, > procedural or otherwise. Is the information on this page, http://klingon.wiki/En/Unicode , accurate as far as the 2016 Klingon proposal is concerned? Quoting the information from that page to save you the trouble: Mark Shoulson had been talking to various UTC members, and the official UTC meeting was planned for November 2016. Nevertheless, the proposal was rejected even before being discussed at the meeting. That's why it's not listed in the list of UTC'S Non-Approvals.(?) David Yonge-Mallo received some info about from the committee later: ? the proposal missed the deadline for the November meeting, but is on the agenda for the January one ? the good news is that the committee considers the evidence of use for Klingon is now sufficient ? the rest of the proposal is in good shape (other than lack of a date), only the IP stands in the way ? Tengwar was added to the roadmap before IP issues arose; adding Klingon to the roadmap has no real effect while IP issues are unresolved ? their recommendation is that the Klingon community work towards getting the IP owners to engage with them to settle the IP issues (There is a more recent proposal, https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf , which does not mention IP issues.) If the answer to my above question is "yes", then the 2016 proposal was robust enough to overcome the usage hurdle and the only remaining objection is the IP.? If this is the case, then why not simply remove Klingon from the "Not the Roadmap" page? From mark at kli.org Wed Sep 15 12:30:35 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:30:35 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> That's great advice, and indeed that's exactly what I tried to do with https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf a few years back (and it looks like I even used the xx00 convention too).? And I asked then if it was convincing.? And if it isn't convincing, let me know and I'll see what else I can find.? Sorry, Asmus, I know you've been mostly sympathetic all along, it just feels a little frustrating to be advised (not just by you) to do exactly what I've already done, as if it never happened.? It's in the registry, I know it should have been looked at.? The latest proposal, https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf, explicitly linked to it.? Has there been any recognition of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence?? There seemed to be some informal agreement from some people in the email thread back in 2016, https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/thread.html#86, and then, too, I was asking if Klingon could at least be taken off the "rejected" list since it couldn't be accepted. > Strong evidence of widespread use and strong evidence that can support > the supposition that this use will not be a flash in the pan, but > continue for decades. The first proposal for Klingon (http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/sc2/WG2/docs/n1643/n1643.htm) dates from 1997.? There are people using it today who were not born then. Does that count? Do you think that https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf does *not* provide some evidence that the situation re: use of Klingon has changed materially?? It's hard to see that position, but we can at least discuss it.? Evidence *has* been provided to try to make the point, as requested. ~mark On 9/14/21 8:29 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 9/14/2021 4:18 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: >> In any case, my advice is to stop worrying about the status in the >> roadmap, and work instead on making the convincing case for encoding. >> I realize that honor is of high value in Klingon society, but it >> doesn't actually figure that much in UTC decisions. ;-) > > Mark, > > I'm not vested in the outcome of the decision about Klingon one way or > the other, but I heartily endorse this statement by Ken. > > Strong evidence of widespread use and strong evidence that can support > the supposition that this use will not be a flash in the pan, but > continue for decades. > > Note the focus on evidence. The harder the better. > > And if you have evidence that the situation re: use of Klingon has > changed materially since that early decision, that would further weigh > in favor of taking this up. > > A./ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Wed Sep 15 13:39:20 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:39:20 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <1970249a-317f-5d38-bda4-9e7a30a84ff5@shoulson.com> On 9/15/21 1:29 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 9/14/2021 10:04 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: >> First, congratulations on the release of Unicode 14.0, the first new release since the pandemic in the Western Hemisphere began, if we can even imagine that. >> >> Asmus Freytag wrote: >> >>> Strong evidence of widespread use and strong evidence that can support >>> the supposition that this use will not be a flash in the pan, but >>> continue for decades. >> U+1FAF6 HEART HANDS >> >> I don't believe UTC could approve a more frivolous and flash-in-the-pan character if it tried. Yeah, that is a pretty bad one.? At least "PERSON TAKING ICE-BUCKET CHALLENGE" was never approved (or proposed), for another flash-in-the-pan craze. > > I don't have an opinion on individual characters, but the death of > emoji has been prognosticated many times. I personally don't think we > are at or even past "peak emoji" quite yet (in terms of overall usage, > that is). However, it would be interesting to see whether anyone has > bothered to collect data. > Emoji come up a lot in these discussions, because they represent a break from the original goal of Unicode to encode things that are in use, not things that might be used.? And okay, that is a big break, but to be fair, emoji are kind of a special case, and it isn't right to try to infer from emoji to other situations.? In some sense, "emoji" as a whole have vast demonstrated usage, and encoding a new character among them is not the same as encoding a script or writing system that has yet to show usage.? It's more like encoding a brand-new character in the IPA that hasn't seen use yet, but we know people use the IPA and so this letter will be used.? (I know, the parallel isn't perfect: an IPA character would have been approved by the IPA, etc.? Try to see the forest for the trees.) So, yeah, emoji are weird, but I don't think they can be generalized. ~mark > I recall seeing some list of usage frequencies on a relative scale, > but nothing about total emoji volume whether absolute or in some > percentages relative to other text in certain environments. > > The per-character frequencies of any pictographic writing system > always have a long tail. That's why looking at any one member of such > a system always allows you to find examples that are "never used". > That doesn't tell you anything about the writing system itself, and if > you accept the need to support one, then you'll inevitably pick up > some of the tail; that's as it should be. > > A./ > > From mark at kli.org Wed Sep 15 13:45:07 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 14:45:07 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <9edd1f9b-e5af-49d3-3f9d-97a4e9007fec@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> <70401214-6b6a-9ceb-5006-5d5bf3a1f075@code2001.com> <9edd1f9b-e5af-49d3-3f9d-97a4e9007fec@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Do you discern a lack of robustness in the recent proposal https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf, given the evidence included by reference from https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf?? Apart from not answering the IP question, which is admittedly something I have no news on.? Obviously more evidence is always welcome, but is there at least something approaching more convincing evidence in the links above?? Book covers at https://www.amazon.com.au/s?i=books-single-index&rh=p_27%3ADeSDu%27&s=relevancerank&text=DeSDu%27&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1 ?? (yes, I realize that is a single author and doesn't prove much, and I don't have a link to a book that I'm sure has pIqaD on the inside ready to hand.) ~mark On 9/15/21 2:54 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 9/14/2021 11:19 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: >> Getting back to the subject thread, if Tengwar had been on the "Not >> the Roadmap" page and a more robust proposal had been submitted >> (along with the passage of time and a shifting of attitudes), would >> it be necessary for the proposer to make a separate request for >> Tengwar to be removed from the "Not..." page -- or would the >> Consortium remove it from that page as a matter of course upon >> considering the newer proposal? > > The key words here are "robust proposal". > > A robust proposal with strong new evidence and good and complete > answers to earlier objections is the key thing to overcoming any > hurdles to acceptance, procedural or otherwise. > > A./ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug at ewellic.org Wed Sep 15 14:17:44 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:17:44 -0600 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > Do you think that > https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf does *not* > provide some evidence that the situation re: use of Klingon has > changed materially? It's hard to see that position, but we can at > least discuss it. Evidence *has* been provided to try to make the > point, as requested. It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode. Other concerns, such as IP encumbrance and insufficient demonstrated usage and faddishness, may be important factors as well. But those can be disproven in an updated proposal, or by time, whereas the "dignity" issue is a matter of perception, and no amount of work that Mark or anyone else does can disprove or change that. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Wed Sep 15 14:19:09 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:19:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <1970249a-317f-5d38-bda4-9e7a30a84ff5@shoulson.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> <1970249a-317f-5d38-bda4-9e7a30a84ff5@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <1c670e53.45074.17beae609bf.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > So, yeah, emoji are weird, but I don't think they can be generalized. Alas, if only they could be! :smile: William http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Wed Sep 15 14:30:25 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:30:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <66414405.450c2.17beaf05ab8.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Doug Ewell wrote: > ... whereas the "dignity" issue is a matter of perception, and no > amount of work that Mark or anyone else does can disprove or change > that. Well maybe I can, by pointing out that companies meeting together to agree common standards is defined as being allowed on the basis that it is helpful to consumers. So an attitude of, well alright, we think it is a bit (redacted) but, well ... if it makes some consumers happy to be able to have it encoded in Unicode, even though we think it's a bit (redacted) we are going to encode it because we are not here to stop people's harmless enjoyment of life and pursuit of happiness. They've been on about it for many years so let's just get it done and move onto other things. William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 15:22:37 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:22:37 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Wed Sep 15 15:41:56 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:41:56 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode. And Asmus adds: > Well, I didn't know that Unicode had "being high-brow" among its > principles. > Indeed.? As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral.? If you took the sentence "encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode" and replaced "Klingon" with, say "Adlam" or "Yezidi" or "Mandombe", would anyone hesitate to call that bigoted and unworthy of Unicode?? "We shouldn't encode X languages because only Y people speak them and we don't want to be associated with them."? Would it be okay to replace X="African" and Y="dark-skinned"?? Then how is it okay to have X="Star Trek" and Y="geeks"?? Would you let some people's disapproval of Yezidis stop you from encoding Yezidi?? Then why do you care about people's disapproval of Klingon-speakers? This horse is dead, and I need to stop beating it.? But so long as this somehow is actually allowed to remain an issue, there's something very seriously wrong with how decisions are made. Is Klingon literature not high-brow enough?? How much research was done to make that decision, how much did the Unicode representatives read, and of what?? And how much research did they do to confirm the worthiness of Mro? ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 15:47:01 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:47:01 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <1970249a-317f-5d38-bda4-9e7a30a84ff5@shoulson.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> <1970249a-317f-5d38-bda4-9e7a30a84ff5@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <396fa1b8-dfbd-5b2c-d373-24bc0a6287f1@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Wed Sep 15 16:00:19 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:00:19 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <396fa1b8-dfbd-5b2c-d373-24bc0a6287f1@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <000001d7a9ef$385aed80$a910c880$@ewellic.org> <244ff19c-5593-55b6-160a-4c96303751ce@ix.netcom.com> <1970249a-317f-5d38-bda4-9e7a30a84ff5@shoulson.com> <396fa1b8-dfbd-5b2c-d373-24bc0a6287f1@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On 9/15/21 4:47 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > It's a writing system that has global reach (even if not "high-brow") > and is actively, you could even say enthusiastically, supported by > systems/font vendors (and users). > I was telling someone once about Unicode: it's the standard for representing letters of all alphabets, etc, they're the ones who officially encode emoji, etc.? The response was surprise: "Why encode emoji?? Who uses those?"? "Um... millions of people, every day, in tweets and stuff?"? "Yeah, but apart from that?"? Well, yeah, apart from the people who use them, nobody uses them.? But that's true of English letters too.? Just that emoji usage wasn't "high-brow" enough for this listener, apparently. >> It's more like encoding a brand-new character in the IPA that hasn't >> seen use yet, but we know people use the IPA and so this letter will >> be used.? (I know, the parallel isn't perfect: an IPA character would >> have been approved by the IPA, etc.? Try to see the forest for the >> trees.) > > When it comes to new items, mathematical symbols may be more similar. > Because of existing, parallel technologies, like TeX, it's possible > for that notation to innovate in advance of standardizing by Unicode. > However, de-facto, the collection is unbounded and actively being > added to. Not all fields of mathematics will ever expand with equal > popularity; so there's a similar issue with additions not equally > guaranteed to be of the same importance/ popularity/longevity. > Yeah, that's a good example, though math symbols also have to show usage before being encoded.? They have better mechanisms for avoiding the chicken-and-egg problem. > > When it comes to immediate support, currency symbols come to mind. > They form an unbounded set of their own, with active innovation > happening, but users not really having a choice whether or not to use > a new symbol (the only thing is that the currency could fail and all > usage to become historical). > This is probably a better example: there is built-in demand that we know is there, and it's adding a symbol to an "alphabet" that's already supported. > >> So, yeah, emoji are weird, but I don't think they can be generalized. > > They fit the intersection between pictographic writing systems with > unbounded collection and writing systems (symbol collections) with > active innovation. > > To the extent that no other system shows just that combination of > trends you can't derive any parallels; on the other hand, they have a > define place in any Venn diagram of writing systems. > Yes.? By "generalized" I meant you can't generalize Unicode's treatment of them to other situations.? I think we're saying the same thing. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From textexin at xencraft.com Wed Sep 15 17:52:33 2021 From: textexin at xencraft.com (Tex) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 15:52:33 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar and emoji and indigenous languages Message-ID: <001701d7aa84$5f7ad750$1e7085f0$@xencraft.com> Some day in the future, this thread and other similar threads are going to be compared with the current discussions in the scientific community and the medical community that are now recognizing that only theories and rationales supported by insiders or considered ?standard science?are being brought forward, and worthy research has been suppressed, delayed and dismissed, only to be found to be true years and decades later. 1) In today?s heavily technological world, both demand and innovation are only comparable when there is equivalent access to technology. Demand and innovation are both suppressed when technology is not available. So Klingon is at an unfair disadvantage. (As are many indigenous languages.) 2) The arguments catering to emoji as a separate entity are quite unfair. Emoji could be subdivided into classes just as most other scripts are treated as distinctive even when they are derivative, and then demand is looked at separately. Arguing that the tail is always small, when instead there are entire categories of emoji that could be described as having less usefulness than Klingon is preposterous. (In fact, I would argue that the abundance of similar looking emoji, makes it hard to recognize their intended distinctive meanings, diluting their usefulness altogether. I need a magnifying glass and a dictionary to make sure the emoji I select is roughly what I intend to say.) 3) Emoji is in a different class as well because there is a committee within Unicode which acts both to administer (or regulate). Having such a committee spurs innovation and demand. Imagine if there was an ?invented? scripts committee? We would then have much more (both legitimate and unwarranted) activity. 4) There are 50+ years of interest in Klingon. At this point, the lack of technological support if anything has acted to suppress demand and interest (unsuccessfully). Hard to say how much activity there would be if Klingon had been supported for several years now. ================= Perhaps the more important aspect of all of this, is how much harm is done when a language with sufficient interest (I have in mind indigenous languages more than Klingon) is overly scrutinized and takes years to be incorporated into the standard and more years to be incorporated into major platforms to become usable. The difficulty for indigenous communities who risk losing their culture and history is significant. I understand the difficulty of defining all the properties and the associated algorithm support for new scripts. However, I wonder if there isn?t a process that could be adopted where characters are allocated to Unicode and rudimentary glyphs defined, in a category of preliminary. This would speed incorporation into technologies. The text could then be used in primitive or experimental ways by the interested communities, with further standardization of properties etc. coming with further study. I am not suggesting all proposals be adopted this way, just those with sufficient interest but perhaps insufficient documentation. This would at the least help indigenous communities preserve text and even allow the communities to assist in the definition of properties for further standardization, as they work with and understand how the text needs to operate to meet their intent. And the same is true for languages like Klingon. (I tried really hard not to respond to this thread, but I finally couldn?t. And I will try to not debate the above. Ducking and running) From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 2:00 PM To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Subject: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar On 9/15/21 4:47 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: It's a writing system that has global reach (even if not "high-brow") and is actively, you could even say enthusiastically, supported by systems/font vendors (and users). I was telling someone once about Unicode: it's the standard for representing letters of all alphabets, etc, they're the ones who officially encode emoji, etc. The response was surprise: "Why encode emoji? Who uses those?" "Um... millions of people, every day, in tweets and stuff?" "Yeah, but apart from that?" Well, yeah, apart from the people who use them, nobody uses them. But that's true of English letters too. Just that emoji usage wasn't "high-brow" enough for this listener, apparently. It's more like encoding a brand-new character in the IPA that hasn't seen use yet, but we know people use the IPA and so this letter will be used. (I know, the parallel isn't perfect: an IPA character would have been approved by the IPA, etc. Try to see the forest for the trees.) When it comes to new items, mathematical symbols may be more similar. Because of existing, parallel technologies, like TeX, it's possible for that notation to innovate in advance of standardizing by Unicode. However, de-facto, the collection is unbounded and actively being added to. Not all fields of mathematics will ever expand with equal popularity; so there's a similar issue with additions not equally guaranteed to be of the same importance/ popularity/longevity. Yeah, that's a good example, though math symbols also have to show usage before being encoded. They have better mechanisms for avoiding the chicken-and-egg problem. When it comes to immediate support, currency symbols come to mind. They form an unbounded set of their own, with active innovation happening, but users not really having a choice whether or not to use a new symbol (the only thing is that the currency could fail and all usage to become historical). This is probably a better example: there is built-in demand that we know is there, and it's adding a symbol to an "alphabet" that's already supported. So, yeah, emoji are weird, but I don't think they can be generalized. They fit the intersection between pictographic writing systems with unbounded collection and writing systems (symbol collections) with active innovation. To the extent that no other system shows just that combination of trends you can't derive any parallels; on the other hand, they have a define place in any Venn diagram of writing systems. Yes. By "generalized" I meant you can't generalize Unicode's treatment of them to other situations. I think we're saying the same thing. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Wed Sep 15 18:12:25 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:12:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar and emoji and indigenous languages In-Reply-To: <001701d7aa84$5f7ad750$1e7085f0$@xencraft.com> References: <001701d7aa84$5f7ad750$1e7085f0$@xencraft.com> Message-ID: <6ae3ac9c.4548a.17bebbb9996.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Tex wrote: > Some day in the future, this thread and other similar threads are > going to be compared with the current discussions in the scientific > community and the medical community that are now recognizing that only > theories and rationales supported by insiders or considered ?standard > science?are being brought forward, and worthy research has been > suppressed, delayed and dismissed, only to be found to be true years > and decades later. Yet they will not be able to get a true picture because some things are being blocked from even being discussed at all so they will not be in the archives! William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at macchiato.com Wed Sep 15 18:21:40 2021 From: mark at macchiato.com (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?=) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:21:40 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: > As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. Let's be very clear. This is an open list where most of the people on the list are simply expressing their opinions. These opinions are too often pure speculation that simply builds on other speculation voiced on this list. With little or no factual foundation. This "dignity" explanation is of that sort. I was around during the discussions, and there was never any mention of "dignity" as being a factor. The principal reason for not progressing Klingon was in fact IP complications. And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved. Mark On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 1:43 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > > It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode. > > And Asmus adds: > > Well, I didn't know that Unicode had "being high-brow" among its > principles. > > Indeed. As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive > beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. If you > took the sentence "encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode" and > replaced "Klingon" with, say "Adlam" or "Yezidi" or "Mandombe", would > anyone hesitate to call that bigoted and unworthy of Unicode? "We > shouldn't encode X languages because only Y people speak them and we don't > want to be associated with them." Would it be okay to replace X="African" > and Y="dark-skinned"? Then how is it okay to have X="Star Trek" and > Y="geeks"? Would you let some people's disapproval of Yezidis stop you > from encoding Yezidi? Then why do you care about people's disapproval of > Klingon-speakers? > > This horse is dead, and I need to stop beating it. But so long as this > somehow is actually allowed to remain an issue, there's something very > seriously wrong with how decisions are made. > > Is Klingon literature not high-brow enough? How much research was done to > make that decision, how much did the Unicode representatives read, and of > what? And how much research did they do to confirm the worthiness of Mro? > > ~mark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Wed Sep 15 20:10:14 2021 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 02:10:14 +0100 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C32FBD9-4E80-4457-B745-63FFA25F5CE5@evertype.com> I agree with Mark Davis. I am often asked about moving forward with Klingon, and all I can say is that I have not found a way to get an answer to the right question. Michael Everson http://evertype.com > On 16 Sep 2021, at 00:23, Mark Davis ?? via Unicode wrote: > > ? > > As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. > > Let's be very clear. This is an open list where most of the people on the list are simply expressing their opinions. These opinions are too often pure speculation that simply builds on other speculation voiced on this list. With little or no factual foundation. > > This "dignity" explanation is of that sort. I was around during the discussions, and there was never any mention of "dignity" as being a factor. The principal reason for not progressing Klingon was in fact IP complications. > > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved. > > Mark > > >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 1:43 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: >>> On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: >>> It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode. >> And Asmus adds: >> >>> Well, I didn't know that Unicode had "being high-brow" among its principles. >>> >> Indeed. As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. If you took the sentence "encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode" and replaced "Klingon" with, say "Adlam" or "Yezidi" or "Mandombe", would anyone hesitate to call that bigoted and unworthy of Unicode? "We shouldn't encode X languages because only Y people speak them and we don't want to be associated with them." Would it be okay to replace X="African" and Y="dark-skinned"? Then how is it okay to have X="Star Trek" and Y="geeks"? Would you let some people's disapproval of Yezidis stop you from encoding Yezidi? Then why do you care about people's disapproval of Klingon-speakers? >> >> This horse is dead, and I need to stop beating it. But so long as this somehow is actually allowed to remain an issue, there's something very seriously wrong with how decisions are made. >> >> Is Klingon literature not high-brow enough? How much research was done to make that decision, how much did the Unicode representatives read, and of what? And how much research did they do to confirm the worthiness of Mro? >> >> ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From prosfilaes at gmail.com Wed Sep 15 20:38:56 2021 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:38:56 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 4:24 PM Mark Davis ?? via Unicode wrote: > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved. No point from whose perspective? Paramount may as well reasonably say that there is no point in even discussing the IP issues until they can examine the final product. It seems unlikely that Unicode is going to bend so far as to produce the text that's going in Chapter 20 about Klingon, but you're asking a lot of Paramount and KLI to get an IP agreement without it being clear that it's reasonably certain Unicode is going for with it. Even at that, what's the IP problem? Nobody is going to be happy if KLI spends weeks trying to work with Paramount's lawyers and they solve the IP problem and then Unicode rejects the solution. >From my perspective, this demand is tantamount to a rejection. If Klingon is going to be encoded in Unicode, the Unicode Consortium should give at least a squishy approval of the script sans IP problems and clear statement of what the Consortium needs out of Paramount. -- The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185 (1991) From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 20:54:09 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:54:09 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <7C32FBD9-4E80-4457-B745-63FFA25F5CE5@evertype.com> References: <7C32FBD9-4E80-4457-B745-63FFA25F5CE5@evertype.com> Message-ID: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From everson at evertype.com Wed Sep 15 21:16:33 2021 From: everson at evertype.com (Michael Everson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 03:16:33 +0100 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> References: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <672DB27B-F2F6-4879-808A-F776337D9554@evertype.com> I know. The question is who. Michael Everson http://evertype.com > On 16 Sep 2021, at 02:55, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > ? > Somebody on "team Klingon" would have to start a dialog with the rights holders; perhaps they would welcome getting the script encoded? > > That someone better speak legalese or work with someone who does, so such a request doesn't get turned down before they understand what this is about and also so that anything received will be acceptable to people watching out for IP encumbrance on the standard. > > A./ > > On 9/15/2021 6:10 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: >> I agree with Mark Davis. I am often asked about moving forward with Klingon, and all I can say is that I have not found a way to get an answer to the right question. >> >> Michael Everson >> http://evertype.com >> >>> On 16 Sep 2021, at 00:23, Mark Davis ?? via Unicode wrote: >>> >>> ? >>> > As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. >>> >>> Let's be very clear. This is an open list where most of the people on the list are simply expressing their opinions. These opinions are too often pure speculation that simply builds on other speculation voiced on this list. With little or no factual foundation. >>> >>> This "dignity" explanation is of that sort. I was around during the discussions, and there was never any mention of "dignity" as being a factor. The principal reason for not progressing Klingon was in fact IP complications. >>> >>> And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 1:43 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: >>>> On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: >>>>> It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode. >>>> And Asmus adds: >>>> >>>>> Well, I didn't know that Unicode had "being high-brow" among its principles. >>>>> >>>> Indeed. As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. If you took the sentence "encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode" and replaced "Klingon" with, say "Adlam" or "Yezidi" or "Mandombe", would anyone hesitate to call that bigoted and unworthy of Unicode? "We shouldn't encode X languages because only Y people speak them and we don't want to be associated with them." Would it be okay to replace X="African" and Y="dark-skinned"? Then how is it okay to have X="Star Trek" and Y="geeks"? Would you let some people's disapproval of Yezidis stop you from encoding Yezidi? Then why do you care about people's disapproval of Klingon-speakers? >>>> >>>> This horse is dead, and I need to stop beating it. But so long as this somehow is actually allowed to remain an issue, there's something very seriously wrong with how decisions are made. >>>> >>>> Is Klingon literature not high-brow enough? How much research was done to make that decision, how much did the Unicode representatives read, and of what? And how much research did they do to confirm the worthiness of Mro? >>>> >>>> ~mark >>>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 21:17:37 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 19:17:37 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <880fd9c6-e216-2155-0fe0-f5777799c141@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Wed Sep 15 18:39:10 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 00:39:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Mark Davis wrote: > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to > consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is > completely resolved. Yet if Unicode Inc. were to do most of the necessary work first and then write to the Intellectual Property Rights owners stating that Unicode Inc. would like to encode the Klingon glyphs into Unicode, and would do so if the Intellectual Property Rights issues could be resolved, and including a detailed draft of what this encoding would involve, then maybe that would lead to progress. William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Wed Sep 15 22:32:45 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:32:45 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <672DB27B-F2F6-4879-808A-F776337D9554@evertype.com> References: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> <672DB27B-F2F6-4879-808A-F776337D9554@evertype.com> Message-ID: <0ef3d96d-5123-150c-b8a9-933942cc6bcd@ix.netcom.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jameskass at code2001.com Wed Sep 15 23:04:38 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 04:04:38 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <0ef3d96d-5123-150c-b8a9-933942cc6bcd@ix.netcom.com> References: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> <672DB27B-F2F6-4879-808A-F776337D9554@evertype.com> <0ef3d96d-5123-150c-b8a9-933942cc6bcd@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <8c1f3214-a69b-d4a9-e2e1-ec34641d22a6@code2001.com> On 2021-09-16 3:32 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > On 9/15/2021 7:16 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > > I know. The question is who. > > Nobody with legal expertise a fan of Klingon? Can't be. Klingons have a passion for honor.? Better Call Saul. From marius.spix at web.de Thu Sep 16 00:13:11 2021 From: marius.spix at web.de (Marius Spix) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:13:11 +0200 Subject: Aw: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: The code block Diggbats (U+2700 to U+27BF) encodes characters which were once IP of Hermann Zapf, but because they are mostly simple geometric shapes like stars or minimal drawings of office items like scissors and pencils they lack a threshold of originality. As it also seems that there are at least three completely different Klingon scripts in use als seen here [1] and there actually is a diaspora speaking and writing Klingon, a standardization by adding that script to Unicode makes totally sense. Other synthetic languages like Volap?k also have their own Unicode characters as well (U+A79A to U+A79F). [1] https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/klingon-alphabet.226783/ > Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 16.09.2021 um 01:39 Uhr > Von: "William_J_G Overington via Unicode" > An: unicode at corp.unicode.org > Betreff: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar > > > Mark Davis wrote: > > > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to > > consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is > > completely resolved. > > Yet if Unicode Inc. were to do most of the necessary work first and then > write to the Intellectual Property Rights owners stating that Unicode > Inc. would like to encode the Klingon glyphs into Unicode, and would do > so if the Intellectual Property Rights issues could be resolved, and > including a detailed draft of what this encoding would involve, then > maybe that would lead to progress. > > William > From jameskass at code2001.com Thu Sep 16 05:54:51 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:54:51 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <8c1f3214-a69b-d4a9-e2e1-ec34641d22a6@code2001.com> References: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> <672DB27B-F2F6-4879-808A-F776337D9554@evertype.com> <0ef3d96d-5123-150c-b8a9-933942cc6bcd@ix.netcom.com> <8c1f3214-a69b-d4a9-e2e1-ec34641d22a6@code2001.com> Message-ID: <2c4cb67c-7880-9d63-b4ea-900a2cdb1c23@code2001.com> "Klingon" is an English word and can be found in many on-line dictionaries.? But if the word "Klingon" raises IP concerns, call it something else. The glyphs used in fonts I've seen all seem to be closely based on the highly stylized glyphs used in film/TV.? As such, maybe it's another IP concern.? So use a different font in the proposals and charts, like in a different style, based on the distinctive shapes and strokes.? Maybe something cursive or hand lettered with a pen or brush instead of whatever implement was used to make those original, highly stylized glyphs. Run this by Unicode's legal and leave CBS/Paramount out of the loop.? If Unicode's legal can find any other potential IP issues, list them and let the proposers address them. From drott at google.com Thu Sep 16 09:21:18 2021 From: drott at google.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Dominik_R=C3=B6ttsches?=) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 17:21:18 +0300 Subject: IUC 45 remote attendance options required Message-ID: Dear Unicode Consortium IUC organizers, dear Mike and Carol, I would like to inquire what measures are taken for international attendees and speakers to participate in IUC 45 if they are not able to travel to Santa Clara. Schengen area (? European) residents and residents from a list of other countries (at least: China, UK, India, Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Iran) are still not allowed entry into the US - as per US policy . This means, conference participants restricted by these travel policies are unfairly left out if there is no option to contribute to and attend the conference in some form of hybrid conference way. Please let me know how you plan to address this in a way that prevents remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. Thank you in advance, Dominik R?ttsches Speaker for Session 10, Vector Color Fonts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 16 05:06:32 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:06:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <4c646b0a.45e51.17bee127a08.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> What exactly, precisely would Unicode Inc. need in relation to the Intellectual Property Rights in order to proceed please? Would a permanent licence to use the glyph designs in The Unicode Standard be enough? Would Unicode Inc. be willing to pay the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights a one-off payment of one United States Dollar as consideration for providing such a licence if that were the way to resolve the matter satisfactorily? Would Unicode Inc. be willing to include in The Unicode Standard and in the code chart a statement mentioning the licence and thanking the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights? William Overington Thursday 16 September 2021 ------ Original Message ------ From: "William_J_G Overington via Unicode" To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Sent: Thursday, 2021 Sep 16 At 00:39 Subject: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Mark Davis wrote: > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to > consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is > completely resolved. Yet if Unicode Inc. were to do most of the necessary work first and then write to the Intellectual Property Rights owners stating that Unicode Inc. would like to encode the Klingon glyphs into Unicode, and would do so if the Intellectual Property Rights issues could be resolved, and including a detailed draft of what this encoding would involve, then maybe that would lead to progress. William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug at ewellic.org Thu Sep 16 11:03:55 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:03:55 -0600 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> Mark Davis wrote: >> As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive >> beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. > > Let's be very clear. This is an open list where most of the people on > the list are simply expressing their opinions. These opinions are too > often pure speculation that simply builds on other speculation voiced > on this list. With little or no factual foundation. > > This "dignity" explanation is of that sort. I was around during the > discussions, and there was never any mention of "dignity" as being a > factor. The principal reason for not progressing Klingon was in fact > IP complications. "Dignity" was my attempt to summarize, paraphrase, the second objection stated by Ken on Tuesday: > Klingon, on the other hand, was a case *both* for IP issues > interfering with a potential encoding that was being pushed *and* was > an early poster child for what was considered "frivolous" encoding by > many participants in SC2 as well as by many senior managers who were > paying the salaries of representatives they were sending to UTC > meetings. If "dignity" is the wrong word to describe the quality of Unicode that would have been sacrificed, in the eyes of the senior managers, by encoding Klingon, perhaps "professionalism" or "credibility" or "seriousness" might be more suitable. I'm not a member of Team Klingon either, but I do think if Klingon is going to be non-approved indefinitely, we should be forthright about the reason(s). I'd love to see a statement from Paramount's legal team, formally waiving any IP claims against Unicode for encoding it or font designers for implementing it, just to see where that gets us. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org From doug at ewellic.org Thu Sep 16 11:24:27 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:24:27 -0600 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> Conversely, I would also appreciate seeing a statement from Paramount's legal team that Klingon is their exclusive IP, and that they intend to pursue vigorously any unauthorized use. At least that way we would know. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org From kenwhistler at sonic.net Thu Sep 16 12:11:17 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 10:11:17 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> Doug, When dealing with a dragon sleeping on top of its treasure hoard, if you want to make off with one insignificant little trinket from that treasure pile, it is generally not a good idea to walk up to the dragon, poke it vigorously, and say, "Mr. Dragon, do you mind if I take this insignificant little trinket from your treasure pile? I'm sure you won't miss it." --Ken On 9/16/2021 9:24 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > Conversely, I would also appreciate seeing a statement from Paramount's legal team that Klingon is their exclusive IP, and that they intend to pursue vigorously any unauthorized use. At least that way we would know. From pgcon6 at msn.com Thu Sep 16 12:13:54 2021 From: pgcon6 at msn.com (Peter Constable) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 17:13:54 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: From: Unicode On Behalf Of Doug Ewell via Unicode Sent: September 15, 2021 12:18 PM > It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode. > > Other concerns, such as IP encumbrance and insufficient demonstrated usage and faddishness, may be important factors as well. But those can be disproven in an updated proposal, or by time, whereas the "dignity" issue is a matter of perception, and no amount of work that Mark or anyone else does can disprove or change that. The "dignity" issue might come up on this list, but for UTC, the IP issue is the biggest blocking issue, and there hasn't been any new information submitted to Unicode indicating any progress toward resolving that. Peter From Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com Thu Sep 16 13:25:57 2021 From: Andrew.Glass at microsoft.com (Andrew Glass) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:25:57 +0000 Subject: [EXTERNAL] IUC 45 remote attendance options required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm in a similar situation. I have approval from my organization to register for the conference (which I have done). But I don't have approval to travel. Microsoft has postponed their back-to-the-office date once again, and travel budget is not available to most teams. So I'm hoping there will be some option for remote participation. Thank you, Andrew ________________________________ From: Unicode on behalf of Dominik R?ttsches via Unicode Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 7:21 AM To: unicode at corp.unicode.org ; Mike Narducci ; Carol David Cc: Roderick Sheeter ; Peter Constable ; Mark Davis Subject: [EXTERNAL] IUC 45 remote attendance options required Dear Unicode Consortium IUC organizers, dear Mike and Carol, I would like to inquire what measures are taken for international attendees and speakers to participate in IUC 45 if they are not able to travel to Santa Clara. Schengen area (? European) residents and residents from a list of other countries (at least: China, UK, India, Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Iran) are still not allowed entry into the US - as per US policy. This means, conference participants restricted by these travel policies are unfairly left out if there is no option to contribute to and attend the conference in some form of hybrid conference way. Please let me know how you plan to address this in a way that prevents remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. Thank you in advance, Dominik R?ttsches Speaker for Session 10, Vector Color Fonts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 16 12:30:55 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:30:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: In my opinion it would be far better to seek a situation of a helpful licence for a small payment as acknowledgement of their rights than to seek a situation of waiving. The Unicode Standard could have a section on Scripts from Creative Writing, then a section of that as Star Trek and a subsection of that as Klingon glyphs. Back in the 1980s I saw a paperback book "The Making of Star Trek" in a bookstore and I bought it. I found it fascinating. It includes transcripts of lots of internal memos of the implementation of the original series. One thing I remember, bearing in mind that the events described had happened in the 1960s, was a letter from a physician who had watched an episode on television enquiring how the doors that opened automatically worked, as such doors would be useful in a medical setting. The polite reply was that they were moved manually by two stagehands. In later years I often remembered that when, by that time, such automatically opening doors had become quite widespread in places such as doctor's surgeries. More widely I opine that it would be far better for the Unicode Technical Committee to have a "can do" approach to encoding so as to assist people pursue their dreams and aspirations than what often seems to be a "can't do" and "won't do" and an "only if big business wants it done" attitude that seems prevalent at the moment. I declare an interest in that I have things that I would like to get encoded but cannot get encoded. I am at home in England using a laptop computer. I have a small webspace that originally came free with dial-up internet in 1997 but has been allowed to continue after the dial-up service closed, I have some budget software, though it is of very high quality. I am retired and simply cannot do many of the things that would be required to achieve the present high bar to encoding newly devised characters. Must my ideas simply remain as like some part of pure mathematics when if the encoding policies were different my ideas could be applied in practice and be useful to people? The Private Use Area is a great facility for trying things, but it is just not on for reaching the bar for showing established prior use that is required for proposals that do not come from within the inner loop. I opine that the policy of all the proof of established use that is required before encoding that seems to be exercised when Unicode Inc. wants that, but abandoned if their mates want something done, is unreasonable. It seems that a new policy of trying to provide service to people rather than continually pushing back on new ideas would be beneficial. That would not abandon scholarship and doing things with precision. Frankly, although it is the existing practice, what exactly, precisely, now that encoding using sequences makes the code space available for encoding vast, is the objection to encoding "items" as characters on the basis that there is a reasonable possibility that such an encoding might be useful to people in the future? William Overington Thursday 16 September 2021 ------ Original Message ------ From: "Doug Ewell via Unicode" To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Sent: Thursday, 2021 Sep 16 At 17:03 Subject: RE: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Mark Davis wrote: As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. Let's be very clear. This is an open list where most of the people on the list are simply expressing their opinions. These opinions are too often pure speculation that simply builds on other speculation voiced on this list. With little or no factual foundation. This "dignity" explanation is of that sort. I was around during the discussions, and there was never any mention of "dignity" as being a factor. The principal reason for not progressing Klingon was in fact IP complications. "Dignity" was my attempt to summarize, paraphrase, the second objection stated by Ken on Tuesday: Klingon, on the other hand, was a case *both* for IP issues interfering with a potential encoding that was being pushed *and* was an early poster child for what was considered "frivolous" encoding by many participants in SC2 as well as by many senior managers who were paying the salaries of representatives they were sending to UTC meetings. If "dignity" is the wrong word to describe the quality of Unicode that would have been sacrificed, in the eyes of the senior managers, by encoding Klingon, perhaps "professionalism" or "credibility" or "seriousness" might be more suitable. I'm not a member of Team Klingon either, but I do think if Klingon is going to be non-approved indefinitely, we should be forthright about the reason(s). I'd love to see a statement from Paramount's legal team, formally waiving any IP claims against Unicode for encoding it or font designers for implementing it, just to see where that gets us. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From copypaste at kittens.ph Thu Sep 16 13:47:20 2021 From: copypaste at kittens.ph (Fredrick Brennan) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:47:20 -0400 Subject: [EXTERNAL] IUC 45 remote attendance options required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgcon6 at msn.com Thu Sep 16 13:49:11 2021 From: pgcon6 at msn.com (Peter Constable) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:49:11 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <4c646b0a.45e51.17bee127a08.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> <4c646b0a.45e51.17bee127a08.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: The main concern is that _users_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. Peter From: Unicode On Behalf Of William_J_G Overington via Unicode Sent: September 16, 2021 3:07 AM To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Subject: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar What exactly, precisely would Unicode Inc. need in relation to the Intellectual Property Rights in order to proceed please? Would a permanent licence to use the glyph designs in The Unicode Standard be enough? Would Unicode Inc. be willing to pay the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights a one-off payment of one United States Dollar as consideration for providing such a licence if that were the way to resolve the matter satisfactorily? Would Unicode Inc. be willing to include in The Unicode Standard and in the code chart a statement mentioning the licence and thanking the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights? William Overington Thursday 16 September 2021 ------ Original Message ------ From: "William_J_G Overington via Unicode" > To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Sent: Thursday, 2021 Sep 16 At 00:39 Subject: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Mark Davis wrote: > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved. Yet if Unicode Inc. were to do most of the necessary work first and then write to the Intellectual Property Rights owners stating that Unicode Inc. would like to encode the Klingon glyphs into Unicode, and would do so if the Intellectual Property Rights issues could be resolved, and including a detailed draft of what this encoding would involve, then maybe that would lead to progress. William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorna_evans at sil.org Thu Sep 16 14:11:14 2021 From: lorna_evans at sil.org (Lorna Evans) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:11:14 -0500 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: > The "dignity" issue might come up on this list, but for UTC, the IP issue is the biggest blocking issue, and there hasn't been any new information submitted to Unicode indicating any progress toward resolving that. If my understanding and memory is correct, Mandombe has a similar issue blocking the encoding: L2/16-019 Bottom of page 1 says: > There are published texts in and about Mandombe, one of which carries > the title, Mandombe: e?criture ne?gro-africaine [Wabeladio Payi 1996]. > It has been suggested that the copyright on at least some of these > texts be voluntarily withdrawn, in order to allow for the encoding > proposal to go forward in the UTC and with ISO, on the grounds that > for implementation to proceed a script cannot be copyrighted. Putting > aside the issue of whether the copyright should be withdrawn, it is an > open question as to whether a copyright once asserted for a textual > work can in fact be withdrawn. The closest that any publisher might be > able to achieve in practice is to assign the work a CC0 license. > 2 > With respect to statements given on p. 29 of the previous proposal > L2/11-053, no requests for funding are currently being made to > facilitate future utilization of the Mandombe script. From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 16 14:26:32 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 20:26:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <1d13cfab.45498.17bebd415b4.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> <4c646b0a.45e51.17bee127a08.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <6fcb56.473b5.17bf0132966.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Peter Constable wrote: > The main concern is that _users_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be > susceptible to IP claims against them. Thank you for replying and for explaining. > Since this is uncertain, the onus is on the advocates for encoding the > script to resolve that. Well, that may be the present policy, but why? That policy could be changed. A letter on headed notepaper from the President of Unicode Inc. personally signed to the owner of the Intellectual Property Rights explaining that the proposal is being considered, explaining clearly and in full the issues and the uncertainty, asking if clarity could be obtained and permission to proceed with the encoding and its application by users of The Unicode Standard be provided please and offering to pay a nominal sum of one United States Dollar as consideration, and offering the option of a joint press press release is, in my opinion, the way to proceed. William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From haberg-1 at telia.com Thu Sep 16 14:42:06 2021 From: haberg-1 at telia.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?=) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:42:06 +0200 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> Message-ID: Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis. > On 16 Sep 2021, at 19:11, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > > Doug, > > When dealing with a dragon sleeping on top of its treasure hoard, if you want to make off with one insignificant little trinket from that treasure pile, it is generally not a good idea to walk up to the dragon, poke it vigorously, and say, "Mr. Dragon, do you mind if I take this insignificant little trinket from your treasure pile? I'm sure you won't miss it." > > --Ken > > On 9/16/2021 9:24 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: >> Conversely, I would also appreciate seeing a statement from Paramount's legal team that Klingon is their exclusive IP, and that they intend to pursue vigorously any unauthorized use. At least that way we would know. From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 16 15:11:09 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:11:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: Copyright issues in relation to encoding of newly invented characters in Unicode (Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar) In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <5cffe88a.474fa.17bf03c003e.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Firstly, I am not a lawyer nor am I legally qualified. Such knowledge as I have of copyright is as a result of me being, a publisher (on a very small scale, yet legally a publisher nonetheless), an author, an inventor and, just at a hobbyist level, an artist. Lorna Evans raises, by quoting from a document, the issue of copyright issues in relation to encoding of newly invented characters in Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646. >> It has been suggested that the copyright on at least some of these >> texts be voluntarily withdrawn, in order to allow for the encoding >> proposal to go forward in the UTC and with ISO, on the grounds that >> for implementation to proceed a script cannot be copyrighted. Is it true that a copyrighted character, or symbol, with a glyph example, cannot become encoded in Unicode even if a free to all irrevocable licence of right is published as a matter of record? In United Kingdom law many things get copyright automatically at the instant of being recorded in a permanent form. So what to do if a newly devised character is invented in the United Kingdom and the glyph is designed in the United Kingdom and were to be proposed for encoding in The Unicode Standard? William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 19:35:16 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 20:35:16 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <880fd9c6-e216-2155-0fe0-f5777799c141@ix.netcom.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <880fd9c6-e216-2155-0fe0-f5777799c141@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On 9/15/21 10:17 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > David raises an interesting point. Perhaps an "approval in principle, > subject to resolving IP issues" is in fact a reasonable approach that > could be taken. Something that documents that no specific technical or > other eligibility problems remain. That might well improve the basis > for settling IP issues. It's already been pointed out that Unicode doesn't do "provisional approval."? And I'm okay with that.? It doesn't have to be complete "we promise we approve this as soon as the remaining issue is worked out."? Just something like "yeah, this looks pretty good, and if you get the remaining issue worked out we can discuss any details." Or, as I asked at the start, I'd settle for "we'll at least consider it," i.e. rescind the decision rejecting it and take it off the "nope, not gonna encode" list.? Why should Paramount consider the issue when there's a rule on the books that it can't be encoded? (remember, the ostensible reason had nothing to do with intellectual property.)? So as David Starner says, you wind up with a deadlock, and this is just another way of declaring rejection. If the reasons for the decision to reject are no longer valid, what excuse is there for retaining the decision?? If the claim is that they are still valid, surely that is subject to debate. ~mark From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 19:38:17 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 20:38:17 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <8df3c417-09b8-18a3-eea2-c57a325c1898@shoulson.com> On 9/15/21 7:21 PM, Mark Davis ? via Unicode wrote: > > And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to > consider the Klingon script unless and until the?IP problem is > completely resolved. Out of curiosity, have the IP issues with Blissymbolics been 'completely resolved'?? Those have IP encumberance as well, don't they? ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 19:59:54 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 20:59:54 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: I don't think I was deeply involved in the discussions at the time either, but see https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html for some reactions: > Keeping Klingon on the books as "under investigation" leaves both UTC > and WG2 open to allegations of frivolity -- see various quotes below. > Every time the discussion comes up, this is pointed out. Leaving it > "on the books" is a source of embarrassment requiring continual > renewal of explanation as to why it is even under investigation. > To quote G. Adam Stanislav: > > />It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or 10646./ > > /Nah, it's not silly. It's offensive./ > > /I find it offensive that Klingon is more important to Unicode > Consortium than a human language. The way I see it, as long as the > proposal is not rejected, it is still being seriously considered. > For the record, the active status of the Klingon alphabet is *the* > reason why I stopped any work on any Unicode software, [...]/ > > To quote John O'Connor: > > /Knowing that the proposal has been placed on the back burner, > knowing that it isn't really taken seriously any longer, in the > true spirit of a Klingon, let us now kill the proposal and thus > leave it some dignity among its supporters. Dragging it around in > its weakened state, knowing that it will not recover, is not > honorable. It is disgraceful. Some Klingon next-of-kin should step > forward here...encourage the consortium to let the proposal die > with honor, with dignity. It's the Klingon way... / > > /??? Appealing to Klingon ethics and sentiment, > ??????? John / > As regards "/I find it offensive that Klingon is more important to Unicode Consortium than a human language."/, that means we have to prove, for every single thing we encode, that it is more important than everything not yet encoded.? Are characters from the Ormulum more "important" than unencoded scripts?? Do characters from rarefied Qur'anic typography take precedence?? Can we really prove we're doing this "in order"? Another one: https://www.mail-archive.com/unicode at unicode.org/msg10345.html I'm taking these from https://www.opoudjis.net/Klingon/piqad.html, but alas, the links there are all broken, and the wayback machine isn't helping. I was responding to the "dignity" argument as mentioned by Doug Ewell, and as he said, perhaps it is the wrong word.? But the argument remains the same, whatever you call it, and even if it isn't what Ken was referring to, the above posts do imply that it is a real thing. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 20:06:33 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:06:33 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> References: <7C32FBD9-4E80-4457-B745-63FFA25F5CE5@evertype.com> <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: On 9/15/21 9:54 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > Somebody on "team Klingon" would have to start a dialog with the > rights holders; perhaps they would welcome getting the script encoded? > > That someone better speak legalese or work with someone who does, so > such a request doesn't get turned down before they understand what > this is about and also so that anything received will be acceptable to > people watching out for IP encumbrance on the standard. Don't think I haven't tried.? The KLI worked on the Klingon in the Star Trek: Discovery series, and thereby had some contacts in the Paramount castle.? And I wrote to them, who said I should write to others, who said I should write to others, and so on, and I climbed the ladder until the top person, that people seemed to agree would be the one who could say so, and who never answered back (despite several attempts?but not lots and lots to the point of spamming).? Does that mean such an approach is hopeless?? Not necessarily, but does that mean the approach here should be hopeless? Thing is, Paramount also has no motivation to do anything about this.? Why should they care?? Who cares about people being able to write stuff on computers?? Oh yeah, Unicode. ~mark From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 20:17:38 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:17:38 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> Message-ID: <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> On 9/16/21 3:42 PM, Hans ?berg via Unicode wrote: > Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis. True, and I tried to make that point in previous discussions on this topic.? The more recent proposals were predicated on a claim that Paramount really has no legal standing on the matter, especially as evidenced by the use of pIqaD in all sorts of environments. However, Ken's point is also a good one: it doesn't matter if Paramount's case is completely baseless.? It doesn't matter if they wouldn't win in court.? Just bringing a case is enough to cause huge damage to Unicode.? Paramount's legal army could empty the minuscule coffers of Unicode just in pre-trial hearings.? Yes, there are laws against doing that, but you know what it takes to get a ruling in your favor regarding those laws?? Yep, more lawsuits.? So I can understand Unicode's reluctance to actually encode without having at least SOME better confidence legally. Which is why I just asked for the rejection to be rescinded, but didn't get that either. Now, Peter Constable writes: > The main concern is that _/users/_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be > susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the > onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. which is an angle I actually had not heard before.? And here I'm really puzzled.? The users of the script are already using the script, whether Unicode encodes it or not.? So why is Unicode suddenly concerned on their behalf?? This one is really kind of strange.? Could Unicode be legally responsible for people "illegally" using the script?? It's hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by the fact that usage exists. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 20:22:40 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:22:40 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <0fec909a-813e-6833-7f01-b74ad2710e6a@shoulson.com> On 9/16/21 1:13 PM, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: > The "dignity" issue might come up on this list, but for UTC, the IP issue is the biggest blocking issue, and there hasn't been any new information submitted to Unicode indicating any progress toward resolving that. > If that's the real blocking issue for UTC, how come it isn't mentioned in https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html, the proposal to reject Klingon?? If the reasons in the proposal are not valid, why is the proposal not rescinded (upon proper request)? (I note, btw, that the "dignity" issue *IS* in fact what is chiefly mentioned in that proposal.? So it isn't just some imagined informal thing that didn't really figure in the decision.) ~mark From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 20:25:37 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 21:25:37 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: <434e9c5d-b115-c339-caa9-875507798884@shoulson.com> On 9/15/21 9:38 PM, David Starner via Unicode wrote: > >From my perspective, this demand is tantamount to a rejection. If > Klingon is going to be encoded in Unicode, the Unicode Consortium > should give at least a squishy approval of the script sans IP problems > and clear statement of what the Consortium needs out of Paramount. Squishy approval would be great.? But I can't even get lack of non-approval. ~mark From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 16 21:54:04 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:54:04 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <2c4cb67c-7880-9d63-b4ea-900a2cdb1c23@code2001.com> References: <8edb155e-38d5-24e3-bb63-9907d25bbef0@ix.netcom.com> <672DB27B-F2F6-4879-808A-F776337D9554@evertype.com> <0ef3d96d-5123-150c-b8a9-933942cc6bcd@ix.netcom.com> <8c1f3214-a69b-d4a9-e2e1-ec34641d22a6@code2001.com> <2c4cb67c-7880-9d63-b4ea-900a2cdb1c23@code2001.com> Message-ID: <1c1803d9-92b6-6581-df5f-9fae0e0c5b32@shoulson.com> These ideas have been suggested before, more or less.? Certainly using a different name.? There already exist fonts with radically different styles (see the link in my previous letter to book covers of books by DeSDu'.? For that matter, DeSDu' himself prefers to write Klingon in pIqaD even by hand, and has developed his hand-written style for it.) But I don't think that appeals to logic and law will sway "Unicode's legal," to the extent there is one, and I can't honestly blame them for that.? Reasonable or not, I can understand the fear of awakening the dragon.? But can we get some recognition that but for that issue, at least *maybe*? ~mark On 9/16/21 6:54 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > "Klingon" is an English word and can be found in many on-line > dictionaries.? But if the word "Klingon" raises IP concerns, call it > something else. > > The glyphs used in fonts I've seen all seem to be closely based on the > highly stylized glyphs used in film/TV.? As such, maybe it's another > IP concern.? So use a different font in the proposals and charts, like > in a different style, based on the distinctive shapes and strokes.? > Maybe something cursive or hand lettered with a pen or brush instead > of whatever implement was used to make those original, highly stylized > glyphs. > > Run this by Unicode's legal and leave CBS/Paramount out of the loop.? > If Unicode's legal can find any other potential IP issues, list them > and let the proposers address them. From sdowney at gmail.com Thu Sep 16 22:12:23 2021 From: sdowney at gmail.com (Steve Downey) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 23:12:23 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 15:46 Hans ?berg via Unicode wrote: > Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV > production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis. > No legal basis is not the same as winning litigation without cost. How much is the org willing to spend defending a lawsuit from Paramount or the Tolkien Estate. My understanding is that in the past this number has been roughly zero. And that's a reasonable position. Especially since a loss on the issue would be a terrible precedent. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asmusf at ix.netcom.com Thu Sep 16 22:54:55 2021 From: asmusf at ix.netcom.com (Asmus Freytag) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 20:54:55 -0700 Subject: [EXTERNAL] IUC 45 remote attendance options required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From haberg-1 at telia.com Fri Sep 17 03:09:09 2021 From: haberg-1 at telia.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?=) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:09:09 +0200 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> Message-ID: <1F800767-5950-4A34-B465-47B92C8E11CF@telia.com> > On 17 Sep 2021, at 05:12, Steve Downey wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 15:46 Hans ?berg via Unicode wrote: > Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis. > > No legal basis is not the same as winning litigation without cost. > How much is the org willing to spend defending a lawsuit from Paramount or the Tolkien Estate. My understanding is that in the past this number has been roughly zero. > And that's a reasonable position. Especially since a loss on the issue would be a terrible precedent. Indeed, that is another issue, even though if you win you probably get your money back. From doug at ewellic.org Fri Sep 17 09:25:17 2021 From: doug at ewellic.org (Doug Ewell) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:25:17 -0600 Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 (was: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar) In-Reply-To: <9d993f1e-48e1-5131-28d8-f35204556064@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <9abca6b2-9406-a1bf-25cc-3cd765b1e2ed@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <9d993f1e-48e1-5131-28d8-f35204556064@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Message-ID: <003401d7abcf$d6eac8d0$84c05a70$@ewellic.org> Looks like this has been fixed. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org -----Original Message----- From: Unicore On Behalf Of Martin J. D?rst via Unicore Sent: Friday, September 17, 2021 0:17 To: UTC Discussion Subject: Fwd: Unicode 14.0.0 (was: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar) I didn't get any answer to my comments below. On the unicoDe list, people are apparently more interested in discussing Klingon than Unicode 14.0.0. I'm redirecting this to unicoRe in the hope I get an answer here. Regards, Martin. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Unicode 14.0.0 (was: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:28:19 +0900 From: Martin J. D?rst via Unicode Reply-To: Martin J. D?rst Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University To: unicode at corp.unicode.org Hello Doug, others, On 2021-09-15 14:04, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > First, congratulations on the release of Unicode 14.0, the first new release since the pandemic in the Western Hemisphere began, if we can even imagine that. The official announcement is at https://home.unicode.org/announcing-the-unicode-standard-version-14-0/. But one of the links points to http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts-14.0/emoji-counts.html, which as of this wringing has a big red beta in its title (Emoji Counts, v14.0? For the current released version, see v13.1.). Also, the official announcement doesn't point to the version of the standard itself (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/). I also miss announcements sent out by mail. Maybe we can blame this on California's recall election :-? Regards, Martin. > Asmus Freytag wrote: > >> Strong evidence of widespread use and strong evidence that can >> support the supposition that this use will not be a flash in the pan, >> but continue for decades. > > U+1FAF6 HEART HANDS > > I don't believe UTC could approve a more frivolous and flash-in-the-pan character if it tried. > > -- > Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org > . From kenwhistler at sonic.net Fri Sep 17 10:23:44 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:23:44 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: Mark, By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek fan convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or ...) have a license from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on their phones, those are far juicier targets for an IP infringement lawsuit, *even if* the likeliest outcome would not be a decisive win in a court case, but rather just some out of court settlement. Even an out of court settlement in some case like this would set a terrible precedent, encouraging other people claiming IP rights on some writing system being considered for encoding in the Unicode Standard. --Ken On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > > Now, Peter Constable writes: > >> The main concern is that _/users/_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be >> susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the >> onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. > > which is an angle I actually had not heard before.? And here I'm > really puzzled.? The users of the script are already using the script, > whether Unicode encodes it or not.? So why is Unicode suddenly > concerned on their behalf?? This one is really kind of strange.? Could > Unicode be legally responsible for people "illegally" using the > script?? It's hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by > the fact that usage exists. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp Sat Sep 18 19:24:29 2021 From: duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp (=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2e_D=c3=bcrst?=) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 09:24:29 +0900 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <281f6a07-1ef6-bbf9-27e0-2e3084e453a3@it.aoyama.ac.jp> On 2021-09-18 00:23, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > Mark, > > By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their > communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek fan > convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD > keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at > Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or ...) > have a license from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on their > phones, those are far juicier targets for an IP infringement lawsuit, > *even if* the likeliest outcome would not be a decisive win in a court > case, but rather just some out of court settlement. Even an out of court > settlement in some case like this would set a terrible precedent, > encouraging other people claiming IP rights on some writing system being > considered for encoding in the Unicode Standard. To end up with a settlement isn't an *even if*, it's pretty much a given. IANAL, and I don't have statistics, but most disputes get settled. It's simply way cheaper, way less risky, and allows both sides to claim (what they think are) their rights in subsequent disputes with other parties. Regards, ? Martin. > --Ken > > On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: >> >> Now, Peter Constable writes: >> >>> The main concern is that _/users/_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be >>> susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the >>> onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. >> >> which is an angle I actually had not heard before.? And here I'm >> really puzzled.? The users of the script are already using the script, >> whether Unicode encodes it or not.? So why is Unicode suddenly >> concerned on their behalf?? This one is really kind of strange.? Could >> Unicode be legally responsible for people "illegally" using the >> script?? It's hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by >> the fact that usage exists. >> From pgcon6 at msn.com Sat Sep 18 19:25:57 2021 From: pgcon6 at msn.com (Peter Constable) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 00:25:57 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: Indeed. Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to want to create fonts and sell licenses when there?s a question as to whether Paramount might go after them? Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal departments sign off on supporting the script? Peter From: Unicode On Behalf Of Ken Whistler via Unicode Sent: September 17, 2021 8:24 AM To: Mark E. Shoulson Cc: unicode at corp.unicode.org Subject: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Mark, By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek fan convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or ...) have a license from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on their phones, those are far juicier targets for an IP infringement lawsuit, *even if* the likeliest outcome would not be a decisive win in a court case, but rather just some out of court settlement. Even an out of court settlement in some case like this would set a terrible precedent, encouraging other people claiming IP rights on some writing system being considered for encoding in the Unicode Standard. --Ken On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: Now, Peter Constable writes: The main concern is that _users_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. which is an angle I actually had not heard before. And here I'm really puzzled. The users of the script are already using the script, whether Unicode encodes it or not. So why is Unicode suddenly concerned on their behalf? This one is really kind of strange. Could Unicode be legally responsible for people "illegally" using the script? It's hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by the fact that usage exists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sdowney at gmail.com Sat Sep 18 19:42:29 2021 From: sdowney at gmail.com (Steve Downey) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 20:42:29 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: Essentially, for a nominally IP encumbered script, you want the party that is claiming ownership to propose that it be encoded. And while that was a bizarre idea when all this first came up a few decades ago, it's less so now. Pitching that everyone will be able to write Klingon on their phone is believable. On Sat, Sep 18, 2021, 20:29 Peter Constable via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > Indeed. > > > > Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to want > to create fonts and sell licenses when there?s a question as to whether > Paramount might go after them? > > > > Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal departments > sign off on supporting the script? > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > *From:* Unicode *On Behalf Of *Ken > Whistler via Unicode > *Sent:* September 17, 2021 8:24 AM > *To:* Mark E. Shoulson > *Cc:* unicode at corp.unicode.org > *Subject:* Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar > > > > Mark, > > By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their > communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek fan > convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD keyboards > and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at Paramount and > wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or ...) have a license > from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on their phones, those are far > juicier targets for an IP infringement lawsuit, *even if* the likeliest > outcome would not be a decisive win in a court case, but rather just some > out of court settlement. Even an out of court settlement in some case like > this would set a terrible precedent, encouraging other people claiming IP > rights on some writing system being considered for encoding in the Unicode > Standard. > > --Ken > > On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > > Now, Peter Constable writes: > > The main concern is that _*users*_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be > susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the onus is > on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. > > which is an angle I actually had not heard before. And here I'm really > puzzled. The users of the script are already using the script, whether > Unicode encodes it or not. So why is Unicode suddenly concerned on their > behalf? This one is really kind of strange. Could Unicode be legally > responsible for people "illegally" using the script? It's hardly in > Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by the fact that usage exists. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From textexin at xencraft.com Sat Sep 18 20:18:43 2021 From: textexin at xencraft.com (Tex) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 18:18:43 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <000601d7acf4$49cf9ea0$dd6edbe0$@xencraft.com> Whether or not foundrys will produce fonts seems like a commercial question separate from whether a script should be encoded. Certainly some of the scripts in Unicode have very bare font support. Is there a criteria in Unicode that says only encode a script if at least this many fonts will be produced? Not that I am aware of. In any event, since Klingon fonts are already available, the questions are moot. From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org] On Behalf Of Peter Constable via Unicode Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 5:26 PM To: Ken Whistler; Mark E. Shoulson; unicode at unicode.org Subject: RE: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Indeed. Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to want to create fonts and sell licenses when there?s a question as to whether Paramount might go after them? Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal departments sign off on supporting the script? Peter From: Unicode On Behalf Of Ken Whistler via Unicode Sent: September 17, 2021 8:24 AM To: Mark E. Shoulson Cc: unicode at corp.unicode.org Subject: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar Mark, By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek fan convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or ...) have a license from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on their phones, those are far juicier targets for an IP infringement lawsuit, *even if* the likeliest outcome would not be a decisive win in a court case, but rather just some out of court settlement. Even an out of court settlement in some case like this would set a terrible precedent, encouraging other people claiming IP rights on some writing system being considered for encoding in the Unicode Standard. --Ken On 9/16/2021 6:17 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: Now, Peter Constable writes: The main concern is that _users_ of The Unicode Standard won?t be susceptible to IP claims against them. Since this is uncertain, the onus is on the advocates for encoding the script to resolve that. which is an angle I actually had not heard before. And here I'm really puzzled. The users of the script are already using the script, whether Unicode encodes it or not. So why is Unicode suddenly concerned on their behalf? This one is really kind of strange. Could Unicode be legally responsible for people "illegally" using the script? It's hardly in Unicode's power to stop them, as evidence by the fact that usage exists. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dpk at nonceword.org Sun Sep 19 02:57:57 2021 From: dpk at nonceword.org (Daphne Preston-Kendal) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 09:57:57 +0200 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> Message-ID: <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> On 16 Sep 2021, at 21:42, Hans ?berg via Unicode wrote: > Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis. Firstly, I am not a lawyer. However, you may be ignoring that Unicode is an international standard. It may be true in some jurisdictions that an alphabet is not copyrightable. Those jurisdictions may include the US where the Unicode Consortium is incorporated. But we have to consider all jurisdictions worldwide. The Klingon alphabet is a collection of original graphic designs, each individual one of which could be considered a creative copyrightable work in some countries. (Countries in the European copyright regime come to mind, since here the barrier to copyrightability (e.g. the sweat of the brow doctrine) and to a copyright claim (e.g. the French system where architects have copyright claims in photos of their completed buildings) is generally lower than in the US.) Now, you could argue by the nature of Unicode that we?re not really incorporating the designs *themselves* into the standard, just assigning each of them a unique number. But the PDF and papers copies of the standard do include sample images of the character, which could present a copyright problem on the standard documents, even if not causing a problem for *users* of the standard, which is the main issue people in this thread seem to be concerned about so far. There is also a slightly more nebulous question around whether an alphabet as a set of sounds to which characters are assigned, divorced from the actual graphic representation of those characters, might be copyrightable. (That is: assume momentarily that e.g. the Greek alphabet is a conscript. Would its owner have a copyright in the collection of the names of the letters and the sounds they represent, distinct from a potential copyright in the designs of each of the characters?) I doubt even in Europe that would be the case, but again ? we have to think worldwide here. Unicode would need to take serious legal advice before making a move towards encoding any script of this nature. Daphne From haberg-1 at telia.com Sun Sep 19 03:14:02 2021 From: haberg-1 at telia.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?=) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 10:14:02 +0200 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: > On 19 Sep 2021, at 09:57, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2021, at 21:42, Hans ?berg via Unicode wrote: > >> Languages, including orthography, are not copyrightable. Movie and TV production companies regularly make copyright claims of no legal basis. > > Firstly, I am not a lawyer. > > However, you may be ignoring that Unicode is an international standard. It may be true in some jurisdictions that an alphabet is not copyrightable. Those jurisdictions may include the US where the Unicode Consortium is incorporated. But we have to consider all jurisdictions worldwide. Each country has its own copyright law, so I focused on the US where the Unicode standard is published. An appendix might be published in the UK, where lawsuit threats are not effective. > The Klingon alphabet is a collection of original graphic designs, each individual one of which could be considered a creative copyrightable work in some countries. (Countries in the European copyright regime come to mind, since here the barrier to copyrightability (e.g. the sweat of the brow doctrine) and to a copyright claim (e.g. the French system where architects have copyright claims in photos of their completed buildings) is generally lower than in the US.) These designs are copyrightable, but not the orthography that they represent. > Now, you could argue by the nature of Unicode that we?re not really incorporating the designs *themselves* into the standard, just assigning each of them a unique number. But the PDF and papers copies of the standard do include sample images of the character, which could present a copyright problem on the standard documents, even if not causing a problem for *users* of the standard, which is the main issue people in this thread seem to be concerned about so far. Those designs are copyrighted, and those examples would have be from a copyright holder that gives the permission. > There is also a slightly more nebulous question around whether an alphabet as a set of sounds to which characters are assigned, divorced from the actual graphic representation of those characters, might be copyrightable. (That is: assume momentarily that e.g. the Greek alphabet is a conscript. Would its owner have a copyright in the collection of the names of the letters and the sounds they represent, distinct from a potential copyright in the designs of each of the characters?) I doubt even in Europe that would be the case, but again ? we have to think worldwide here. In the US, it is a Common Law interpretation, and the judge of the Beastie Boys case made the judgement that the composed snipped was not enough creatively unique to be copyrightable, contrary to the flute performance of the same snippet. > Unicode would need to take serious legal advice before making a move towards encoding any script of this nature. Lawyers might help, but in the US, it is decided in court of law. From prosfilaes at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 05:18:35 2021 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 03:18:35 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 1:00 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal via Unicode wrote: > Unicode would need to take serious legal advice before making a move towards encoding any script of this nature. Of what nature? Osmanya, created 1922, creator died 1972 N?Ko, created 1949, creator died 1987 Adlam, created 1980s, creators alive Osage. created 2004-2014, creators alive Kayah Li, created 1962, creator death unclear Pahawh Hmong, created 1959, creator died in 1971 Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong, created 1980s, creator living Shavian, created 1960s, creator died 1975 Sorang Sompeng, created 1936, creator died in 1980 This is not complete, but there's eight scripts that, if copyright applies to scripts, are copyrighted in life+70 nations. (There's more, but I stopped looking, and left out several maybes.) For most of these Unicode has ignored any copyright the creators may own entirely; even for those like Osage, where I know there was Unicode-creator contact, I don't know of anything on paper. Let's not be too abstract about this; Unicode has acted as if the creators of the Osage or Adlam scripts won't sue for control, which, given a Pepe the Frog type situation, I'm not sure I entirely trust. If it's an abstract legal question for Unicode, Unicode has acted with disregard for the rights of those creators. Unicode has decided that the law, to the extent it cares to follow the law, is on its side. This is about risk management, not the law. Or it's an excuse to put Klingon aside without having to discuss use and "dignity". -- The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185 (1991) From sosipiuk at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 10:13:54 2021 From: sosipiuk at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?S=C5=82awomir_Osipiuk?=) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 11:13:54 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 6:21 AM David Starner via Unicode wrote: > > This is not complete, but there's eight scripts that, if copyright > applies to scripts, are copyrighted in life+70 nations. (There's more, > but I stopped looking, and left out several maybes.) For most of these > Unicode has ignored any copyright the creators may own entirely; even > for those like Osage, where I know there was Unicode-creator contact, > I don't know of anything on paper. > The scripts you mentioned (I admit I haven't looked at all of them) are different from Klingon, however. Their creators intended that they be used for communication. Their inclusion in Unicode furthers that aim, and it's a reasonable assumption that their creators consider it a benefit. Klingon originated as a movie/TV prop, owned by a production company whose primary goal is profit (or, more charitably, entertainment). Their entire attitude toward anything that could even remotely be their IP is greedy, as can be expected of such a company. They may not see any benefit to encoding unless it nets them money, or at least positive advertising. Additionally, the issue of "dignity" (or whatever one chooses to call it) is real. A script intended to aid the speakers of a natural language (especially a minority one), to preserve a centuries-old cultural history, or to assist people who cannot communicate via standard speech, will be seen as noble and positive. A script invented as part of a fictional work, and adopted only by eccentric fans of that work, will be seen generally as trivial and weird. So while Klingon is, in a philosophical sense, not much different from any constructed script, it is different in a practical sense. Its risk-to-(perceived)-benefit ratio is much larger. > > Unicode has acted as if the creators of the Osage or Adlam scripts won't sue for control, which, given a Pepe the Frog type situation, I'm not sure I entirely trust. > It was a guess, but a good one. Just like it's a decent guess that Paramount might sue for Klingon. There are no hard lines here, just probabilities that make some propositions more appealing than others. FWIW, I'd like to see Klingon included. I'm not holding my breath, though. S?awomir Osipiuk From ratmice at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 10:22:09 2021 From: ratmice at gmail.com (Matt Rice) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 15:22:09 +0000 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:21 AM David Starner via Unicode wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 1:00 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal via Unicode > wrote: > > Unicode would need to take serious legal advice before making a move towards encoding any script of this nature. > > Of what nature? > > Osmanya, created 1922, creator died 1972 > N?Ko, created 1949, creator died 1987 > Adlam, created 1980s, creators alive > Osage. created 2004-2014, creators alive > Kayah Li, created 1962, creator death unclear > Pahawh Hmong, created 1959, creator died in 1971 > Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong, created 1980s, creator living > Shavian, created 1960s, creator died 1975 > Sorang Sompeng, created 1936, creator died in 1980 > > This is not complete, but there's eight scripts that, if copyright > applies to scripts, are copyrighted in life+70 nations. (There's more, > but I stopped looking, and left out several maybes.) For most of these > Unicode has ignored any copyright the creators may own entirely; even > for those like Osage, where I know there was Unicode-creator contact, > I don't know of anything on paper. > > Let's not be too abstract about this; Unicode has acted as if the > creators of the Osage or Adlam scripts won't sue for control, which, > given a Pepe the Frog type situation, I'm not sure I entirely trust. > If it's an abstract legal question for Unicode, Unicode has acted with > disregard for the rights of those creators. Unicode has decided that > the law, to the extent it cares to follow the law, is on its side. > This is about risk management, not the law. Or it's an excuse to put > Klingon aside without having to discuss use and "dignity". > How many of the above scripts were not intended to be written i.e. copied, By its very nature most scripts are. It's somewhat paradoxical to argue that something is for reading and writing, but that copying the script itself is reserved. For Klingon though, on wikipedia you see quotes like: "Its source was intended as a guide for scriptwriters and actors. It was only later sold for merchandising for Star Trek fans." So rather than evidence of educational materials teaching you how to read and write it, there something wikipedia editors believe is evidence it wasn't intended to be written beyond the rights holder. Not a lawyer, but my opinion is this seems like a fairly clear distinction between a solid case for the defense, and a solid case for the rights holder... I don't get your Pepe the Frog analogy, unless there is a "How to draw Pepe the Frog" drawing book, where we don't know if the author might sue you if you actually draw it from the instructions given in the book. Scripts tend to fall into this situation but it doesn't seem clear to me that Klingon does... If nobody can get an answer out of the creator, I'd guess people may still have legal recourse in the form of a declaratory judgement... Which doesn't seem like an action that unicode should be responsible for spearheading... From me at ophir.li Sun Sep 19 04:13:20 2021 From: me at ophir.li (Ophir Lifshitz) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 05:13:20 -0400 Subject: Line-breaking algorithm: Unexpected break in multiple consecutive numeric prefixes Message-ID: I have a question about the line-breaking algorithm. Apologies if it is uninformed or if this is the wrong venue. I recently experienced an unexpected line break[1] after the first character in the following sequence[2]: ?? 2212 MINUS SIGN (line-breaking class PR) ?$ 0024 DOLLAR SIGN (line-breaking class PR) ?4 0034 DIGIT FOUR (line-breaking class NU) ?5 0035 DIGIT FIVE (line-breaking class NU) (However, if the first character is replaced by 002B PLUS SIGN (also class PR), a line break does not occur.) I also noticed that there is no "PR ? PR" rule in (e.g.) LB25. Is this intended, perhaps an oversight, or is it up to implementation discretion i.e. "tailored"? If it is an oversight, what is the process for correcting it or filing a bug? It is hard to find that information on the Unicode website. Thank you. [1] The line break appeared in Chrome 93 and Safari 13.1 on Mac 10.13, but not in Firefox 85. I tested by navigating in my browser to the following data URIs: data:text/html;charset=utf-8,%E2%88%92$45

data:text/html;charset=utf-8,%2B$45

[2] This sequence is intended to behave as a single unit (word), and refers to a price discount in the original text. From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Sun Sep 19 10:26:48 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 16:26:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: <3a1fb57a.4b858.17bfeaac073.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Many people all seem to be assuming objections to encoding by people originating new ideas for scripts. People might feel delighted, even flattered and honoured. A polite request might be joyfully and enthusiastically accepted. Best regards, William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christoph.paeper at crissov.de Sun Sep 19 16:05:49 2021 From: christoph.paeper at crissov.de (=?utf-8?Q?Christoph_P=C3=A4per?=) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 23:05:49 +0200 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: S?awomir Osipiuk via Unicode: > > ?On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 6:21 AM David Starner via Unicode > wrote: >> >> This is not complete, but there's eight scripts that, if copyright >> applies to scripts, are copyrighted in life+70 nations. Valid and important observation indeed. > The scripts you mentioned (?) are different from Klingon, however. Their creators intended that they be used for communication. Their inclusion in Unicode furthers that aim, and it's a reasonable assumption that their creators consider it a benefit. > > Klingon originated as a movie/TV prop, It originated there, yes, but what the fans and geeks made out of it is culture proper. The Klingon culture and language have been deliberately created, but these artifacts have become the basis of an actual living and flourishing community. The fans animated the prop. That makes the Klingon script, which is an integral part of this, no less valuable than your random minority script or obscure manuscript letter. It?s definitely worthy of encoding. > owned by a production company Nobody can own a language, nor a writing system. That doesn?t stop people to try. > Additionally, the issue of "dignity" (?) is real. A script intended to aid the speakers of a natural > language (?), to preserve a centuries-old cultural history, or to assist people who cannot communicate via standard speech, will be seen as noble and positive. A script invented as part of a fictional work, and adopted only by eccentric fans of that work, will be seen generally as trivial and weird. That?d be ?geekism?. It?s no less arrogant and ignorant than any other kind of cultural chauvinism. I?m pretty sure that if Marc Okrand had devised a special letter or diacritic mark to be used to transliterate Klingon with roman letters, it would have been added to Unicode twenty-something years ago. I mean, ? is there and almost all that?s been said above could be said about this gesture as well. Being a complete alphabetic script shouldn?t change anything about that. From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 18:29:21 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:29:21 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> Message-ID: On 9/16/21 12:03 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > If "dignity" is the wrong word to describe the quality of Unicode that would have been sacrificed, in the eyes of the senior managers, by encoding Klingon, perhaps "professionalism" or "credibility" or "seriousness" might be more suitable. Whatever word you use, it doesn't sound better.? It's been claimed that I'm just imagining things and this was never really an issue, but it is very clearly articulated in an official Unicode proposal: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html? A proposal which *passed*.? So, yes, Unicode is on-record with that argument. And really, what's beneath Unicode's dignity is this "dignity" argument.? "We won't encode X because we don't want to be associated with Y" is just as bigoted and narrow-minded when X="Klingon", Y="Star Trek nerds who live in their parents' basements" as it is when X="Qur'anic typographical marks" and Y="terrorist fanatics."? Both do a disservice to the communities. THAT is something that is beneath Unicode's dignity. ~mark From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 18:37:44 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:37:44 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: On 9/17/21 11:23 AM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > > Mark, > > By _users_ here, Peter doesn't mean some random end user using their > communicator (err, smart phone) to send piQaD messages at a StarTrek > fan convention, but rather the implementing companies who put piQaD > keyboards and fonts on those smart phones. If somebody wakes up at > Paramount and wonders, hmmm, does Apple (or Google, or Samsung, or > ...) have a license from us for that Klingon stuff they just put on > their phones, those are far juicier targets for an IP infringement > lawsuit, *even if* the likeliest outcome would not be a decisive win > in a court case, but rather just some out of court settlement. Even an > out of court settlement in some case like this would set a terrible > precedent, encouraging other people claiming IP rights on some writing > system being considered for encoding in the Unicode Standard. > > --Ken > That really, really sounds like reaching to me.? Keep in mind, there already *is* usage, which means there already *are* people sending messages and printing printing books.? See https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf for some examples.? And I've never yet heard of Unicode hesitating to encode because of possible font issues.? Font issues are for font designers.? The "sample glyphs" in the Unicode standard needn't be copies of what Paramount uses.? At some point, the cry of "but they could sue us anyway!" becomes hollow, because you know what? If they can sue you without a legal leg to stand on if you encode Klingon, they can sue you without a legal leg to stand on even if you *don't* encode Klingon.? They can *always* sue you anyway. And again, this all started because I asked for the rejection of Klingon to be rescinded.? A rejection that appears (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html) to have been based on the "dignity" argument.? Is that argument still valid?? Do you really want Unicode to stand for it?? Is the "lack of usage" reason which was given at the time still valid?? If so, what do you make of the examples shown?? There's certainly room to discuss that.? Is there still a reason a *reject* Klingon, apart from the IP considerations? (Are you worried about people getting sued for Mandombe or Blissymbols too?? Do they have a different status?) ~mark From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 18:40:56 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:40:56 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <4c04cb8a-56ba-cf99-8a27-e42ef287d245@shoulson.com> On 9/18/21 8:25 PM, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: > > Indeed. > > Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to > want to create fonts and sell licenses when there?s a question as to > whether Paramount might go after them? > > Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal > departments sign off on supporting the script? > These would seem to be their decisions, not yours.? Type foundries rip off one another's designs all the time in all sorts of scripts, but that doesn't affect encodability.? Moreover, I point out again that it's *already being done* by people who are apparently willing to take the risk even before Unicode encodes things.? They'll probably carry on doing so afterward as well.? If nobody else does, well, that's for the invisible hand of capitalism to influence. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 18:45:30 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:45:30 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <93cd013a-99ee-cdc7-370e-be5284574059@shoulson.com> On 9/18/21 8:25 PM, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: > > Indeed. > > Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to > want to create fonts and sell licenses when there?s a question as to > whether Paramount might go after them? > > Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal > departments sign off on supporting the script? > Oh yeah, and this also brings up something else that's important: this is a new angle I did not know about before.? If Paramount *had* been listening to me or answering me, I probably would not have mentioned this in whatever "negotiations" we had or whatever declaration I got them to sign.? I've had a vague idea all along of what Unicode wanted, and I thought a vague idea was enough, but now I'm not so sure.? If I climb the ladder again and actually get Paramount to sign something, I don't want to come back here and be told, "nope, we need them to say something else." I'll check the official responses in the minutes and all to see if anything really specific was mentioned, but I don't think it was ever really spelled out.? Can you tell me what you need them to say?? I thought I knew, but it's best to have it out in the open. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 18:52:34 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:52:34 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: <11f05055-340b-8efc-4e79-e716131295d2@shoulson.com> There are other recent orthographies still in consideration.? We've heard Mandombe *might* have some possible claims on it, and I don't know the exact status of Blissymbolics.? I assume Sutton Signwriting was either explicitly placed in the public domain or whoever controls it signed off on the encoding. > Or it's an excuse to put Klingon aside without having to discuss use and "dignity". Indeed.? And again, I'm not imagining the "dignity" argument, it's official.? Given new information on usage, can we get some "squishy" recognition that "but for" possible copyright issues, Klingon is at least worth considering? ~mark On 9/19/21 6:18 AM, David Starner via Unicode wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 1:00 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal via Unicode > wrote: >> Unicode would need to take serious legal advice before making a move towards encoding any script of this nature. > Of what nature? > > Osmanya, created 1922, creator died 1972 > N?Ko, created 1949, creator died 1987 > Adlam, created 1980s, creators alive > Osage. created 2004-2014, creators alive > Kayah Li, created 1962, creator death unclear > Pahawh Hmong, created 1959, creator died in 1971 > Nyiakeng Puachue Hmong, created 1980s, creator living > Shavian, created 1960s, creator died 1975 > Sorang Sompeng, created 1936, creator died in 1980 > > This is not complete, but there's eight scripts that, if copyright > applies to scripts, are copyrighted in life+70 nations. (There's more, > but I stopped looking, and left out several maybes.) For most of these > Unicode has ignored any copyright the creators may own entirely; even > for those like Osage, where I know there was Unicode-creator contact, > I don't know of anything on paper. > > Let's not be too abstract about this; Unicode has acted as if the > creators of the Osage or Adlam scripts won't sue for control, which, > given a Pepe the Frog type situation, I'm not sure I entirely trust. > If it's an abstract legal question for Unicode, Unicode has acted with > disregard for the rights of those creators. Unicode has decided that > the law, to the extent it cares to follow the law, is on its side. > This is about risk management, not the law. Or it's an excuse to put > Klingon aside without having to discuss use and "dignity". > From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 19:02:15 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 20:02:15 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: <85d511da-050b-15e0-1f4f-0912d0637a11@shoulson.com> On 9/19/21 11:13 AM, S?awomir Osipiuk via Unicode wrote: > Additionally, the issue of "dignity" (or whatever one chooses to call > it) is real. A script intended to aid the speakers of a natural > language (especially a minority one), to preserve a centuries-old > cultural history, or to assist people who cannot communicate via > standard speech, will be seen as noble and positive. A script invented > as part of a fictional work, and adopted only by eccentric fans of > that work, will be seen generally as trivial and weird. No disrespect intended to efforts to encode scripts for minority languages, nor do I mean to equate the "suffering" of Klingon fans with the needs of preserving real cultural identities.? But just because some people think it's weird or wrong isn't a reason not to do it, as we have seen numerous times with Unicode already. I've already quoted my conversation with someone who believes that emoji are "trivial and weird."? There are people out there who strongly disapprove of/hate Yezidis (ISIL disapproves them to death in large numbers), Muslims (there's plenty of Islamophobia still in the world), Christians (talk to ISIL again, or the Taliban), but we still encoded Yezidi, Arabic (and still adding bits and pieces of Qur'anic typography), and Latin (even special characters for one particular Christian religious tract (the Ormulum)).? Those people are haters and don't count?? All this is "no true Scotsman" argumentation: nobody "important" hates those people. Your arguments would have rang just as true in the 1960s arguing against civil rights, because it makes people feel weird.? (Again, not trying to draw a comparison to our case, but to the similarity in the argument.) ~mark From mark at kli.org Sun Sep 19 19:07:51 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 20:07:51 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9/19/21 5:05 PM, Christoph P?per via Unicode wrote: > S?awomir Osipiuk via Unicode: > >> Additionally, the issue of "dignity" (?) is real. A script intended to aid the speakers of a natural >> language (?), to preserve a centuries-old cultural history, or to assist people who cannot communicate via standard speech, will be seen as noble and positive. A script invented as part of a fictional work, and adopted only by eccentric fans of that work, will be seen generally as trivial and weird. > That?d be ?geekism?. It?s no less arrogant and ignorant than any other kind of cultural chauvinism. YES!? Thank you. > I?m pretty sure that if Marc Okrand had devised a special letter or diacritic mark to be used to transliterate Klingon with roman letters, it would have been added to Unicode twenty-something years ago. I mean, ? is there and almost all that?s been said above could be said about this gesture as well. Being a complete alphabetic script shouldn?t change anything about that. Good point (about if Okrand had invented a diacritic).? Then it would have been something used by a noted scholar (still, only one noted scholar, and Unicode tries to avoid idiosyncratic inventions used only by their inventors?with some exceptions, like the Ormulum, because sometimes it's important!)? Has it been confirmed that Klingon fans lack noted scholars?? We have had at least one well-known linguist (apart from Okrand) write for the KLI's journal, back when it had one. ~mark From prosfilaes at gmail.com Sun Sep 19 20:21:14 2021 From: prosfilaes at gmail.com (David Starner) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 18:21:14 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <99692F4C-B55C-471D-97CA-D285CF878058@nonceword.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 8:22 AM Matt Rice wrote: > How many of the above scripts were not intended to be written i.e. copied, > By its very nature most scripts are. > > It's somewhat paradoxical to argue that something is for reading and > writing, but that copying the script itself is reserved. Stock photos are made to be copied, but not for free, and often with usage caveats. Virtually all open source software is not public domain, and has restrictions on how you can copy and use it. Navajo is now offered as a subject in some Arizona public schools. The Hopi asked why Navajo was and Hopi wasn't. Arizona said, sure, we can offer Hopi. The Hopi said, but only to actual Hopi. Which is why Hopi is not offered as a subject in Arizona public schools. Just because it's a language/script, doesn't mean they want you using it. > I don't get your Pepe the Frog analogy, unless there is a "How to draw > Pepe the Frog" drawing book, where we don't know if the author might > sue you The creator of Pepe the Frog turned a blind eye to huge amounts of meme use. But as the Guardian says in "Pepe the Frog creator wins $15,000 settlement against Infowars"*: ( https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jun/13/pepe-the-frog-creator-wins-15000-settlement-against-infowars ) "Infowars had been selling Pepe?s image on posters when Furie brought the copyright lawsuit against it in order to stop his character?s image being used in forms that he is opposed to, especially for commercial gain. "Louis Tompros, Furie?s lawyer, told the Washington Post: ?The goal of this was not really about making money and certainly not about going after Alex Jones ? The goal is to make sure the use of Pepe in association with hateful images and ideas stops, and if anybody thinks they?re going to make any money by selling Pepe hate merchandise, they won?t.? If Osage or Adlam became a code script of some non-Osage or Fula speaking group, said group being considered odious, I can imagine legal action being taken to try and suppress that use. Lawsuits to stop the Fraktur-style Adlam that's hypothetically might become weirdly popular among certain white right-wing groups in the US and Europe, for example. I understand why the concerns are different, but I don't think they're different in an abstract legal sense; they're only different in that Paramount is far more powerful than the Barry brothers. I do wonder if calling it pIqaD instead of Klingon, and thus distancing Unicode from the core Paramount trademarks, might help. Possible trademark issues are something more or less unique to Klingon. -- The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185 (1991) From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Mon Sep 20 15:45:20 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:45:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: Klingon and literature Message-ID: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> I have noted it claimed that Klingon is now a language and has its own original literature and is worth encoding in Unicode. I have found Klingon poetry on the web. Would it help the case to be made if there were presented examples, with translations to English, of Klingon poetry? I know that poetry does not need to rhyme, but much poetry does rhyme. So does Klingon poetry have rhymes? What words rhyme in Klingon that give an insight in a poem that is not apparent in translations of the poem to other languages? To explain what I am trying to express, here are some lines from a song in Esperanto that I wrote in 1998. Kiam ne?as se vi imagas la bran?kornojn de boaco Se vi dol?e respektas la vivon de erinaco Please note how boaco rhymes with erinaco. The word boaco translates to English as reindeer. The word erinaco translates to English as hedgehog So there is an effect in the Esperanto original that is not there in the English translation, an effect that just would never have originated when writing rhyming lines in English. So can any such effect be shown in Klingon poetry with words that rhyme in Klingon yet do not rhyme in English? If I were on the Unicode Technical Committee that would impress me - but I am not going to be on that committee - yet maybe it would help the case for encoding Klingon anyway. William Overington Monday 20 September 2021 From rick at corp.unicode.org Mon Sep 20 15:56:07 2021 From: rick at corp.unicode.org (Rick McGowan) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:56:07 -0700 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: In case everyone missed Konora's pre-pandemic tour: http://konoratheklingon.weebly.com/ From kenwhistler at sonic.net Mon Sep 20 16:54:23 2021 From: kenwhistler at sonic.net (Ken Whistler) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:54:23 -0700 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <7b550164-0c6f-127e-4743-4cfe78bf4c42@sonic.net> Well, there definitely is some Klingon love poetry. Not sure that rhyme has much to do with it. bav qojmeyvam / be jachmey / 'u' nIHHoch / Qam Huj ("From this pit / agony screams / to include / all that it can.") In any case, you can have a go at it. Try yopwaH "pants", ropyaH "infirmary", chuyDaH "thrusters", and pu'DaH "phaser banks". ;-) --Ken On 9/20/2021 1:45 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: > So can any such effect be shown in Klingon poetry with words that > rhyme in Klingon yet do not rhyme in English? > From jameskass at code2001.com Mon Sep 20 16:44:47 2021 From: jameskass at code2001.com (James Kass) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:44:47 +0000 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: References: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <91f4af21-ea2c-199b-f085-7594145c597f@code2001.com> On 2021-09-20 8:56 PM, Rick McGowan via Unicode wrote: > In case everyone missed Konora's pre-pandemic tour: > > http://konoratheklingon.weebly.com/ > > > That's all fine and dandy for opera fans.? But fans of the death metal genre should be pleased by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stovokor_(band) Perhaps the reason that no record label has signed them up yet has to do with IP concerns. From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 23 08:40:16 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:40:16 -0400 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: References: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <6dd7c49e-3b21-3cb9-b0ba-89654856c7b1@shoulson.com> jenbom (https://www.klingonpopwarrior.com/) comes to the qep'a' each year, has lots of YouTube videos for your viewing pleasure, etc.? (She does mainly cover songs, translations from popular songs in English, so I guess those don't technically count as Klingon literature.) I mean, the existence of literature in Klingon isn't really in dispute, or shouldn't be.? For original works, there are things like ?paq'batlh? (http://klingon.wiki/En/Paqbatlh), which is actually Okrandian canon, and ?'u'? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BCu%CA%BC), a Klingon opera. The Klingon Christmas Carol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Klingon_Christmas_Carol) is not strictly "original", but it is a sufficiently free retelling as to count (and it also isn't strictly Klingon, as there is an English-speaking narrator.)? (The Klingon Hamlet probably doesn't count as quite so original, nor the translations of Gilgamesh and the Tao Te Ching or the "Worlds of Translation" project).? DeSDu' has written books of original poetry and prose in Klingon (https://www.kli.org/product/jach-qarol-a-collection-of-klingon-haiku/, https://www.kli.org/product/cha-monmey-ebook/, and several at https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3ADesdu%27+Pagh+Puqlod&s=relevancerank&text=Desdu%27+Pagh+Puqlod&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1, though one or two of those might be translations.? And note, as mentioned earlier, that all the covers, at least, are in pIqaD. DeSDu' writes in pIqaD whenever possible.)? People come up with poems and stories every year at the conference (sometimes extemporaneously).? Qov has written apparently quite a long novel (http://klingon.wiki/En/NuqBopBom, readable at https://nuqbopbom.blogspot.com/) Is this really a thing that needs to be demonstrated anymore? ~mark On 9/20/21 4:56 PM, Rick McGowan via Unicode wrote: > In case everyone missed Konora's pre-pandemic tour: > > http://konoratheklingon.weebly.com/ > > From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 23 08:56:25 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:56:25 -0400 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <1e9abe00.4e89b.17c04f4bffb.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: On 9/20/21 4:45 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: > I have noted it claimed that Klingon is now a language and has its own > original literature and is worth encoding in Unicode. > > I have found Klingon poetry on the web. > > Would it help the case to be made if there were presented examples, > with translations to English, of Klingon poetry? I don't see what case would be made.? Klingon's language-ness wasn't at issue; it was the usage of pIqaD to transmit it that was claimed to be lacking. > I know that poetry does not need to rhyme, but much poetry does rhyme. > > So does Klingon poetry have rhymes? There was a big debate about that loooong ago among Klingonists. And of course the answer is that some people think rhymes are important in Klingon and some people don't.? I don't think ?paq'batlh? rhymes, but I could be misremembering.? The translation of Ben Jonson's poem at the front of the First Folio (found at the front of the Klingon Hamlet) does rhyme and scan (I know because I wrote it.)? There is rhyme in the Klingon translation of Hamlet (Nick Nicholas was of the opinion that rhyming did exist in Klingon poetry.) Look, poets do what they like, ok? > What words rhyme in Klingon that give an insight in a poem that is not > apparent in translations of the poem to other languages? Words that rhyme giving insight that isn't in other languages...? Not sure I follow you.? If it is news to you that poems which rhyme in one language don't necessarily rhyme when translated into another (depending on the fidelity of the translation) then you know less about languages than I thought.? (Now, I have a fascination with the style of translation that seemed to be fashionable in the 1950s or so, where they worked hard to preserve the rhyme and scansion and somehow managed to be surprisingly faithful to the original also, and I've been experimenting with it myself, but that's a completely different conversation.) > > So can any such effect be shown in Klingon poetry with words that > rhyme in Klingon yet do not rhyme in English? I'm not sure what kind of reasoning is going on with this question. Are there poems in Klingon (or that could be written in Klingon) which rhyme words whose translations don't rhyme?? That this is true seems so trivial that I wonder why the question is even being asked.? Contrariwise, it's harder to do the other way, to make translations that rhyme in both.? (There was a project once to translate "Leaves of three / let them be" (a rhyme of warning to avoid the triple-leafletted poison ivy plant) into various languages.? I managed Esperanto, Klingon, Lojban, and Volap?k translations that rhymed, but that doesn't mean those languages are in any way codes of one another.? Different words rhymed in each version, the translations weren't word-for-word... I mean come on, translations are translations!) > If I were on the Unicode Technical Committee that would impress me - > but I am not going to be on that committee - yet maybe it would help > the case for encoding Klingon anyway. That a language isn't a mechanical encoding of another language is certainly important, but it's also a very very low bar.? That's why Pig Latin isn't generally recognized as a separate language. Besides, this isn't about encoding Klingon as a language: the language is in use and exists and that was obvious back in 1997 as well.? The (ostensible) dispute was about the writing system used for the language: was the Latin transcription the only way it was written, or did pIqaD have usage as well?? This is not a question which is subject to answering by reading poetry, but by looking at how it was written down. ~mark From Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com Thu Sep 23 13:49:06 2021 From: Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com (Shawn Steele) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 18:49:06 +0000 Subject: AW: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: <4c04cb8a-56ba-cf99-8a27-e42ef287d245@shoulson.com> References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> <4c04cb8a-56ba-cf99-8a27-e42ef287d245@shoulson.com> Message-ID: Note that Microsoft provided a pIqaD version of the Bing translator as part of the Klingon translation, using the PUA conscript codepoints. It was ?my? font, though it was also available for free. It was up for years, though as developers working on it moved it isn?t currently up. But Microsoft had an agreement ? (I know there are translation quality issues, that?s out of my control). There was a brief conversation of the encoding at that time, but, like Mark?s efforts, it didn?t really get to the right people to sign off. I do think that Mark makes some good points about the current language of the rejection perhaps being a bit off-putting for any future discussions should someone be able to contact the right person at Paramount. IMO, perhaps it would be good to formally propose it again, and get a rejection that explicitly notes the primary concern is around the IP. And hopefully doesn?t otherwise impugn the worthiness of the proposal. -Shawn Von: Unicode Im Auftrag von Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode Gesendet: Sunday, September 19, 2021 4:41 PM An: unicode at corp.unicode.org Betreff: Re: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar On 9/18/21 8:25 PM, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: Indeed. Consider some professional but small type foundry. Are they going to want to create fonts and sell licenses when there?s a question as to whether Paramount might go after them? Consider a large software / device vendor: will their legal departments sign off on supporting the script? These would seem to be their decisions, not yours. Type foundries rip off one another's designs all the time in all sorts of scripts, but that doesn't affect encodability. Moreover, I point out again that it's *already being done* by people who are apparently willing to take the risk even before Unicode encodes things. They'll probably carry on doing so afterward as well. If nobody else does, well, that's for the invisible hand of capitalism to influence. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Thu Sep 23 14:16:39 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:16:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: Klingon and literature Message-ID: <3531bcf5.55c68.17c1416a0e9.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Given that the Klingon language is perhaps oriented to Star Trek stories, I wondered whether the Klingon language would be able to express things such as colours. For example, please consider the poem that I wrote that is featured on page 1 of the following thread. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/138654-artwork-for-greetings-cards/ An internet search gave the following web page. http://klingonska.org/ref/color.html Now in that page is the following, > The color violet, or purple, is not actually a Klingon color. Klingon > for the Galactic Traveler has the following to say on the subject: > ?The fact that neither SuD nor Doq includes what is called ?violet? or > ?purple? in Federation Standard may be related to Klingon > physiology?that is, exactly how the Klingon eye processes different > wavelengths of light.? I do not know what the science fiction details of that are, but whatever, it would seem that if, in a science fiction story, a Klingon stood on earth and saw a rainbow, then it would not appear how some of us see a rainbow. Which raises the question of how does a rainbow look to a human who has colour vision disability? So I got to thinking, if there were an alien race where the people could see colours as many humans see them but also could see colours of electromagnetic radiation beyond the visible spectrum of humans, such people might see a rainbow as wider and perhaps more beautiful, or maybe with edge colours that seemed awful. How could a poem about a rainbow and its colours written by one of those people be translated into a language now in use on earth? Can the poem that I wrote be translated into Klingon, with the season of the year and the colours of the rainbow? Is there any Klingon poetry that expresses colours? A helpful gentleman informed me of the following link to a video about colour and languages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtnD4jmCDQ William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 23 15:48:40 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:48:40 -0400 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: <3531bcf5.55c68.17c1416a0e9.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> References: <3531bcf5.55c68.17c1416a0e9.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <5186903f-9a0c-c3d8-809a-0e81c6d597c1@shoulson.com> On 9/23/21 3:16 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: > > Given that the Klingon language is perhaps oriented to Star Trek > stories, I wondered whether the Klingon language would be able to > express things such as colours. > Klingons are anthropomorphic and the Star Trek universe seems to be populated with species who apparently perceive the world much the same way humans do, so why wouldn't they have color? Klingon color words are an interesting linguistic in-joke which Marc Okrand played, in that they do not obey the generally-accepted "universals" for human languages in terms of color division and development. However, this topic is no longer on-topic for the Unicode list, so I won't go further.? This discussion should not be held here. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From beckiergb at gmail.com Thu Sep 23 16:07:35 2021 From: beckiergb at gmail.com (Rebecca Bettencourt) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:07:35 -0700 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> <4c04cb8a-56ba-cf99-8a27-e42ef287d245@shoulson.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:52 AM Shawn Steele via Unicode < unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote: > IMO, perhaps it would be good to formally propose it again, and get a > rejection that explicitly notes the primary concern is around the IP. > Has this not already happened? L2/20-169 (Recommendations to UTC #164 July 2020 on Script Proposals) addressed this on page 31: Document: L2/20-181 Proposal to encode Klingon in Unicode -- Shoulson and Litaer [...] Comments: We reviewed this proposal for Klingon. [...] The minutes from UTC #149 in November 2016 recorded an action (149-A103) ?Respond to submitter that it looks like there is sufficient usage to justify encoding Klingon as a script. *UTC would need clear proof that Paramount would not pursue legal action against the Unicode Consortium, or anyone who implements the script.*? [emphasis mine] The following comments were made during discussion: ? It was noted that there was a lawsuit involving Paramount that raised the issue of Klingon and an amicus brief (on the Klingon script, see page 12). The lawsuit was settled in 2017. ? We request the proposal author provide information on why trademark and copyright are no longer an issue, pointing to the notice of non-approval. *A disclaimer from Paramount stating they have no interest in IP rights to the encoding of the proposal is needed.* [emphasis mine] ? Provide some background on the Klingon Language Institute, which has a font for Klingon. ? Add the date to the proposal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 23 16:08:34 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:08:34 -0400 Subject: AW: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> <4c04cb8a-56ba-cf99-8a27-e42ef287d245@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <40248010-8e31-44bc-4f13-a197a6c0102a@shoulson.com> On 9/23/21 2:49 PM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > > Note that Microsoft provided a pIqaD version of the Bing translator as > part of the Klingon translation, using the PUA conscript codepoints.? > It was ?my? font, though it was also available for free.? It was up > for years, though as developers working on it moved it isn?t currently > up.? But Microsoft had an agreement ?? (I know there are translation > quality issues, that?s out of my control). > Yeah, I was hoping maybe someone in Microsoft could help me find the right people to talk to at Paramount. > > There was a brief conversation of the encoding at that time, but, like > Mark?s efforts, it didn?t really get to the right people to sign off. > > I do think that Mark makes some good points about the current language > of the rejection perhaps being a bit off-putting for any future > discussions should someone be able to contact the right person at > Paramount.? IMO, perhaps it would be good to formally propose it > again, and get a rejection that explicitly notes the primary concern > is around the IP.? And hopefully doesn?t otherwise impugn the > worthiness of the proposal. > I *did* propose it again! https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf? Again, I appreciate your sympathy, but when even your friends keep telling you to do things you've already done, as though they never happened, it's frustrating. So I proposed it, and indeed I was again told (informally) that the IP is the sticking point (but the official document voted on, https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html, is still about "dignity.")? Various past rejections, when they were recorded in the minutes (I don't think they always were) *did* indeed say that IP was the main problem, and I'll have to look back to see if they were explicit about what exactly Paramount needs to agree to, since apparently I don't understand that as well as I thought I did. The official response to 20-181?? It's at https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20172.htm, and says, "UTC took no action." So, "formally propose it again"?? Check.? "Get a rejection that explicitly notes..."?? That isn't up to me, and I guess that's why I'm speaking up here. ~mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark at kli.org Thu Sep 23 16:14:29 2021 From: mark at kli.org (Mark E. Shoulson) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:14:29 -0400 Subject: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar In-Reply-To: References: <72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com> <2330acdb-cf67-abb7-58f1-2f3bee18e08e@sonic.net> <6f24146e-11dc-8380-79c5-e27e5c9af969@ix.netcom.com> <55cac41f-94c3-7fc5-3485-689b7ba64136@shoulson.com> <000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org> <000001d7ab14$738d3a90$5aa7afb0$@ewellic.org> <000301d7ab17$521563d0$f6402b70$@ewellic.org> <5922f4f2-5ac4-15f1-4104-e369b0defc6c@sonic.net> <875a0ea7-242f-e22b-ea77-1697a1fd7663@shoulson.com> <4c04cb8a-56ba-cf99-8a27-e42ef287d245@shoulson.com> Message-ID: Indeed!? Rebecca is right; I just couldn't find that response before.? Sorry I overlooked those in my response just now.? Thank you for correcting me.? So, yes, there is something here which might answer what I'm looking for.? "...proof that Paramount would not pursue legal action against the Unicode Consortium, or anyone who implements the script."? That does indeed capture the other aspect that I hadn't been thinking of.? Hm.? There's really no point in asking me for "information on why trademark and copyright are no longer an issue," if you are requiring "a disclaimer from Paramount," which would settle that question.? There are a variety of reasons why they aren't an issue anyway, but Unicode is (understandably) leery of putting itself on the line for those reasons.? What you really want is that disclaimer. I guess it's back to the drawing board, but I am still very disappointed that Unicode wouldn't even say "maybe." ~mark On 9/23/21 5:07 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:52 AM Shawn Steele via Unicode > > wrote: > > IMO, perhaps it would be good to formally propose it again, and > get a rejection that explicitly notes the primary concern is > around the IP. > > > Has this not already happened? L2/20-169 (Recommendations to UTC #164 > July 2020 on Script Proposals) addressed this on page 31: > > Document: L2/20-181 Proposal to encode Klingon in Unicode -- Shoulson > and Litaer > > [...] > > Comments: We reviewed this proposal for Klingon. [...] The minutes > from UTC #149 in November 2016 recorded an action (149-A103) ?Respond > to submitter that it looks like there is sufficient usage to justify > encoding Klingon as a script. *UTC would need clear proof that > Paramount would not pursue legal action against the Unicode > Consortium, or anyone who implements the script.*? [emphasis mine] > > The following comments were made during discussion: > ? It was noted that there was a lawsuit involving Paramount that > raised the issue of Klingon and an amicus brief (on the Klingon > script, see page 12). The lawsuit was settled in 2017. > ? We request the proposal author provide information on why trademark > and copyright are no longer an issue, pointing to the notice of > non-approval. *A disclaimer from Paramount stating they have no > interest in IP rights to the encoding of the proposal is needed.* > [emphasis mine] > ? Provide some background on the Klingon Language Institute, which has > a font for Klingon. > ? Add the date to the proposal. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From haberg-1 at telia.com Fri Sep 24 03:28:05 2021 From: haberg-1 at telia.com (=?utf-8?Q?Hans_=C3=85berg?=) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 10:28:05 +0200 Subject: Klingon and literature In-Reply-To: <5186903f-9a0c-c3d8-809a-0e81c6d597c1@shoulson.com> References: <3531bcf5.55c68.17c1416a0e9.Webtop.100@btinternet.com> <5186903f-9a0c-c3d8-809a-0e81c6d597c1@shoulson.com> Message-ID: <948FB980-EF08-4CFA-8E8D-F9625D2C3886@telia.com> > On 23 Sep 2021, at 22:48, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > > On 9/23/21 3:16 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: >> Given that the Klingon language is perhaps oriented to Star Trek stories, I wondered whether the Klingon language would be able to express things such as colours. >> > Klingons are anthropomorphic and the Star Trek universe seems to be populated with species who apparently perceive the world much the same way humans do, so why wouldn't they have color? > > Klingon color words are an interesting linguistic in-joke which Marc Okrand played, in that they do not obey the generally-accepted "universals" for human languages in terms of color division and development. > > However, this topic is no longer on-topic for the Unicode list, so I won't go further. This discussion should not be held here. Unicode has several code points that suggest color, though not a requirement in rendering [1]. So you might add such to your proposal, maybe some Klingon emoji?. Color vision varies a great deal among species here on Earth, for example, mammals such as cats and dogs are dichromatic, and birds are tetrachromatic, with an added ultraviolet sensitivity. The colors are then shifted, in birds the RGB are equidistant, whereas in normal human color vision the green is shifted towards the green. Then one type of color deficiency, deuteranomaly, commonly referred to red-green color blindness, the most common type of color deficiency, the green is further shifted towards the red so it becomes hard to distinguish between some reddish and greenish colors, but one side effect is being able to distinguish between intensities that normal vision humans cannot. So there is a reverse Ishihara test that those with deuteranomaly can see correctly, but those with normal color vision cannot. In addition, there is a cultural and linguistic factor, for example, in Old Norse, blue is (thought of) to be used in place of black in names like Harald Bluetooth. 1. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9626115/color-in-the-unicode-standard From drott at google.com Tue Sep 28 08:18:02 2021 From: drott at google.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Dominik_R=C3=B6ttsches?=) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:18:02 +0300 Subject: IUC 45 remote attendance options required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi again everyone, I haven't received any response so far - could you please reply and explain how you plan to organize the conference in a way that prevents remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. I still find this essential with the background of restrictive rules that still exist regarding entering the US at the time of the conference, in particular for an international organisation like the Unicode consortium? Thanks, Dominik On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:21 PM Dominik R?ttsches wrote: > Dear Unicode Consortium IUC organizers, dear Mike and Carol, > > I would like to inquire what measures are taken for international > attendees and speakers to participate in IUC 45 if they are not able to > travel to Santa Clara. > > Schengen area (? European) residents and residents from a list of other > countries (at least: China, UK, India, Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Iran) > are still not allowed entry into the US - as per US policy > . > This means, conference participants restricted by these travel policies are > unfairly left out if there is no option to contribute to and attend the > conference in some form of hybrid conference way. > > Please let me know how you plan to address this in a way that prevents > remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. > > Thank you in advance, > > Dominik R?ttsches > Speaker for Session 10, Vector Color Fonts > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drott at google.com Tue Sep 28 08:51:00 2021 From: drott at google.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Dominik_R=C3=B6ttsches?=) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:51:00 +0300 Subject: IUC 45 remote attendance options required In-Reply-To: References: <751147f1-a979-4f40-b30c-e34630c8e322.b71984f4-a7ab-41f3-881b-edf6db41f559.be859a01-df36-47e4-a261-b96406294195@emailsignatures365.codetwo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mike and others, I appreciate there's a step in the right direction and a remote connectivity option for speakers is useful. Thank you. Sharing of conference videos is finally happening, that's a good step as well. Still, I think this solution severely lacks remote participation. I've attended conferences such as the ATypI Tech Talks 2021 or the Type Tech Meetup which were better set-up for making the conference attendance accessible remotely. The technology is there. Post event video catch-up is useful, but it does not replace, for example, a forum or chat room in which questions can be asked by the audience directly after a talk and brought to the room. The numbers on participation being mostly US and even California centric lead me to think about survivorship bias. Perhaps there's a problem in itself in how this conference is set up, how it invites attendees and whom it makes excited to join? We may ask ourselves why the numbers are like that, and why the conference is not attracting a more diverse audience. The fact that the audience numbers so far have been North America centric or even California centric does not mean that the conference should be organized exclusively for that audience. Instead, in my opinion, it should be opened up wider and make it even easier for an international audience to attend and participate. I find there are good topics and content that interest me in this conference, but I'd like to share my opinion here in the hope of future improvements. Dominik On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:22 PM Mike Narducci wrote: > Hi Dominik, > > > > Apologies. In the subsequent email exchanges, it looks like you were > inadvertently omitted from the email thread. Below is my Sunday reply to > the whole group. > > > > *Hi All,* > > > * Thank you for your patience. * > > > > *We have a solution! Now the long-winded lead up?* > > > > *Let me start out by saying that we will not be offering a hybrid approach > for attendees at IUC 45. This has been planned as a face to face event, > and to pivot to hybrid this late in the process would be difficult. Not > just from a staffing/logistics/financial perspective but also from a, well, > financial perspective? What I mean by this is that this conference isn?t a > large-scale conference with thousands of attendees, dozens of exhibitors, > and many sponsors. This is an event that in a normal year attracts 150-160 > attendees. A very small sandbox. If you now offer a virtual option, you > will very likely submarine your onsite attendee and speaker counts. As > soon as that option is posted/promoted, we know there will certainly be > quite a few that decide to make the switch to virtual. Give a chance and > it?ll be taken. Not only does this impact the financial model in the form > of attendee credits, but it also impacts our on-site preps like room sets > and in particular food and beverage estimates each day. We have already > submitted our f&b minimum numbers to the hotel so we are already committed > to spending and delivering to these levels.* > > > > *But there?s good news. The majority of attendees are concentrated in a > very specific geographical area.* > > > > *Year over year, we average a minimum of 80% attendance from the US and > Canada. Of those North American attendees, we average over 70% from > California. This may sound like a Yogi Berra quip (NY Yankees Hall of > Famer, known for his unique quotes. Look him up?) but 100% of the 70% are > from the Bay Area. All, with the exception of perhaps 1 or 2, are within > commuter, walking, or in Mike McKenna?s case, bike riding distance. This > includes speakers as well, over 80% are from the local area. We knew all > along that we may run into issues with a few speakers that could not attend > in person because of country/state/company/health restrictions. And we > have been preparing to still allow them to present remotely. But these are > one-off solutions to accommodate speakers only. We have heard from a few > speakers that they cannot present in person and we have let them know > directly that we will be back in touch with presentation remote > connectivity. This week we will also be sending a broadcast speaker note, > giving everyone the usual speaker requirements and will be using that as a > way to flesh out anyone else that may not be able to present in person. > We?ll then coordinate the remote connectivity option with them > individually.* > > > > *Even with the expected drop in attendance, we are confident that the > event will still be viable. We have been targeting this as realistically > being the first face-to-face event for most of us in a very long time. > This should be a reward in a sense for those that were able/allowed to > participate in person. A large part of that reward is the opportunity to > once again start networking. It?s a huge component of every IUC event and > we?re so happy that this will once again take place.* > > > > *As I said at the beginning, we have a solution!!!* > > > > *Google will not only be supporting IUC 45 as a Gold Sponsor again this > year, but they have beyond graciously offered to sponsor the recordings of > all the Thursday and Friday sessions! Post event, we will make the > recordings available to attendees for free and accessible for a fee to > those that could not attend in person. After 45-60 days, we will then post > them to YouTube to be available to the greater community. We will not > record the Wednesday tutorials as these are more like training sessions and > the speakers themselves may get royalties from the content.* > > > > *Thanks to Rod and Dave from Google, we will be able to outfit each room > with robo-cams, laptops, mics, and an AV tech with switcher and control > panel to video record the speaker in room and toggle over to the slide > presentation and back. This will not only allow folks to view on demand, > but it also maintains the structure and integrity for the IUC 45 > face-to-face attendee.* > > > > Regards, > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Mike Narducci > Director of Meetings and Events > Boston, MA, USA UTC-04 > +1 781 444 0404 <(781)%20444-0404>; 104 > mike at omg.org > > > *From:* Dominik R?ttsches > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:18 AM > *To:* unicode at unicode.org; Mike Narducci ; Carol David < > carol at omg.org> > *Cc:* rsheeter ; Peter Constable < > pconstable at microsoft.com>; Mark Davis > *Subject:* Re: IUC 45 remote attendance options required > > > > Hi again everyone, > > > > I haven't received any response so far - could you please reply and > explain how you plan to organize the conference in a way that prevents > remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. I still find this essential > with the background of restrictive rules that still exist regarding > entering the US at the time of the conference, in particular for an > international organisation like the Unicode consortium? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dominik > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:21 PM Dominik R?ttsches > wrote: > > Dear Unicode Consortium IUC organizers, dear Mike and Carol, > > > > I would like to inquire what measures are taken for international > attendees and speakers to participate in IUC 45 if they are not able to > travel to Santa Clara. > > > > Schengen area (? European) residents and residents from a list of other > countries (at least: China, UK, India, Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Iran) > are still not allowed entry into the US - as per US policy > . > This means, conference participants restricted by these travel policies are > unfairly left out if there is no option to contribute to and attend the > conference in some form of hybrid conference way. > > > > Please let me know how you plan to address this in a way that prevents > remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. > > > > Thank you in advance, > > > > Dominik R?ttsches > > Speaker for Session 10, Vector Color Fonts > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: omg_logo_rgb_400x200_2c17239e-18c4-4e8f-9f8a-c276af8616d0.png Type: image/png Size: 8701 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com Tue Sep 28 12:07:57 2021 From: wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com (William_J_G Overington) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 18:07:57 +0100 (BST) Subject: IUC 45 remote attendance options required In-Reply-To: References: <751147f1-a979-4f40-b30c-e34630c8e322.b71984f4-a7ab-41f3-881b-edf6db41f559.be859a01-df36-47e4-a261-b96406294195@emailsignatures365.codetwo.com> Message-ID: It is expensive too! So even with remote access possible it is not an option for some people who are interested in the topics. Could something be done like putting videos on YouTube please, perhaps live? William ------ Original Message ------ From: "Dominik R?ttsches via Unicode" To: "Mike Narducci" Cc: "unicode at unicode.org" ; "Carol David" ; "rsheeter" ; "Peter Constable" ; "Mark Davis" Sent: Tuesday, 2021 Sep 28 At 14:51 Subject: Re: IUC 45 remote attendance options required Hi Mike and others, I appreciate there's a step in the right direction and a remote connectivity option for speakers is useful. Thank you. Sharing of conference videos is finally happening, that's a good step as well. Still, I think this solution severely lacks remote participation. I've attended conferences such as the ATypI Tech Talks 2021 or the Type Tech Meetup which were better set-up for making the conference attendance accessible remotely. The technology is there. Post event video catch-up is useful, but it does not replace, for example, a forum or chat room in which questions can be asked by the audience directly after a talk and brought to the room. The numbers on participation being mostly US and even California centric lead me to think about survivorship bias. Perhaps there's a problem in itself in how this conference is set up, how it invites attendees and whom it makes excited to join? We may ask ourselves why the numbers are like that, and why the conference is not attracting a more diverse audience. The fact that the audience numbers so far have been North America centric or even California centric does not mean that the conference should be organized exclusively for that audience. Instead, in my opinion, it should be opened up wider and make it even easier for an international audience to attend and participate. I find there are good topics and content that interest me in this conference, but I'd like to share my opinion here in the hope of future improvements. Dominik On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:22 PM Mike Narducci > wrote: Hi Dominik, Apologies. In the subsequent email exchanges, it looks like you were inadvertently omitted from the email thread. Below is my Sunday reply to the whole group. Hi All, Thank you for your patience. We have a solution! Now the long-winded lead up? Let me start out by saying that we will not be offering a hybrid approach for attendees at IUC 45. This has been planned as a face to face event, and to pivot to hybrid this late in the process would be difficult. Not just from a staffing/logistics/financial perspective but also from a, well, financial perspective? What I mean by this is that this conference isn?t a large-scale conference with thousands of attendees, dozens of exhibitors, and many sponsors. This is an event that in a normal year attracts 150-160 attendees. A very small sandbox. If you now offer a virtual option, you will very likely submarine your onsite attendee and speaker counts. As soon as that option is posted/promoted, we know there will certainly be quite a few that decide to make the switch to virtual. Give a chance and it?ll be taken. Not only does this impact the financial model in the form of attendee credits, but it also impacts our on-site preps like room sets and in particular food and beverage estimates each day. We have already submitted our f&b minimum numbers to the hotel so we are already committed to spending and delivering to these levels. But there?s good news. The majority of attendees are concentrated in a very specific geographical area. Year over year, we average a minimum of 80% attendance from the US and Canada. Of those North American attendees, we average over 70% from California. This may sound like a Yogi Berra quip (NY Yankees Hall of Famer, known for his unique quotes. Look him up?) but 100% of the 70% are from the Bay Area. All, with the exception of perhaps 1 or 2, are within commuter, walking, or in Mike McKenna?s case, bike riding distance. This includes speakers as well, over 80% are from the local area. We knew all along that we may run into issues with a few speakers that could not attend in person because of country/state/company/health restrictions. And we have been preparing to still allow them to present remotely. But these are one-off solutions to accommodate speakers only. We have heard from a few speakers that they cannot present in person and we have let them know directly that we will be back in touch with presentation remote connectivity. This week we will also be sending a broadcast speaker note, giving everyone the usual speaker requirements and will be using that as a way to flesh out anyone else that may not be able to present in person. We?ll then coordinate the remote connectivity option with them individually. Even with the expected drop in attendance, we are confident that the event will still be viable. We have been targeting this as realistically being the first face-to-face event for most of us in a very long time. This should be a reward in a sense for those that were able/allowed to participate in person. A large part of that reward is the opportunity to once again start networking. It?s a huge component of every IUC event and we?re so happy that this will once again take place. As I said at the beginning, we have a solution!!! Google will not only be supporting IUC 45 as a Gold Sponsor again this year, but they have beyond graciously offered to sponsor the recordings of all the Thursday and Friday sessions! Post event, we will make the recordings available to attendees for free and accessible for a fee to those that could not attend in person. After 45-60 days, we will then post them to YouTube to be available to the greater community. We will not record the Wednesday tutorials as these are more like training sessions and the speakers themselves may get royalties from the content. Thanks to Rod and Dave from Google, we will be able to outfit each room with robo-cams, laptops, mics, and an AV tech with switcher and control panel to video record the speaker in room and toggle over to the slide presentation and back. This will not only allow folks to view on demand, but it also maintains the structure and integrity for the IUC 45 face-to-face attendee. Regards, Mike Mike Narducci Director of Meetings and Events Boston, MA, USA UTC-04 +1 781 444 0404; 104 mike at omg.org From: Dominik R?ttsches > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 9:18 AM To: unicode at unicode.org ; Mike Narducci >; Carol David > Cc: rsheeter >; Peter Constable >; Mark Davis > Subject: Re: IUC 45 remote attendance options required Hi again everyone, I haven't received any response so far - could you please reply and explain how you plan to organize the conference in a way that prevents remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. I still find this essential with the background of restrictive rules that still exist regarding entering the US at the time of the conference, in particular for an international organisation like the Unicode consortium? Thanks, Dominik On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:21 PM Dominik R?ttsches > wrote: Dear Unicode Consortium IUC organizers, dear Mike and Carol, I would like to inquire what measures are taken for international attendees and speakers to participate in IUC 45 if they are not able to travel to Santa Clara. Schengen area (? European) residents and residents from a list of other countries (at least: China, UK, India, Ireland, Brazil, South Africa, Iran) are still not allowed entry into the US - as per US policy . This means, conference participants restricted by these travel policies are unfairly left out if there is no option to contribute to and attend the conference in some form of hybrid conference way. Please let me know how you plan to address this in a way that prevents remote attendees from being at a disadvantage. Thank you in advance, Dominik R?ttsches Speaker for Session 10, Vector Color Fonts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: omg_logo_rgb_400x200_2c17239e-18c4-4e8f-9f8a-c276af8616d0.png Type: image/png Size: 8701 bytes Desc: not available URL: