Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Mark E. Shoulson]

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: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210915/8b620cdb/attachment.htm>