Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Michael Everson]

I know. The question is who. 

Michael Everson
http://evertype.com

> On 16 Sep 2021, at 02:55, Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> 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 <unicode at corp.unicode.org> 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 <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: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210916/a2887313/attachment.htm>