Difference between Klingon and Tengwar
Mark E. Shoulson
mark at kli.org
Wed Sep 15 13:45:07 CDT 2021
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
? (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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode