Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Mark E. Shoulson]

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: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210915/e5ae53e0/attachment.htm>