Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

James Kass jameskass at code2001.com
Wed Sep 15 04:18:21 CDT 2021

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.(⁷)

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
<end quote>

(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?

More information about the Unicode mailing list