AW: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar
Mark E. Shoulson
mark at kli.org
Thu Sep 23 16:08:34 CDT 2021
On 9/23/21 2:49 PM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote:
> Note that Microsoft provided a pIqaD version of the Bing translator as
> part of the Klingon translation, using the PUA conscript codepoints.
> It was ‘my’ font, though it was also available for free. It was up
> for years, though as developers working on it moved it isn’t currently
> up. But Microsoft had an agreement 😊 (I know there are translation
> quality issues, that’s out of my control).
Yeah, I was hoping maybe someone in Microsoft could help me find the
right people to talk to at Paramount.
> There was a brief conversation of the encoding at that time, but, like
> Mark’s efforts, it didn’t really get to the right people to sign off.
> I do think that Mark makes some good points about the current language
> of the rejection perhaps being a bit off-putting for any future
> discussions should someone be able to contact the right person at
> Paramount. IMO, perhaps it would be good to formally propose it
> again, and get a rejection that explicitly notes the primary concern
> is around the IP. And hopefully doesn’t otherwise impugn the
> worthiness of the proposal.
I *did* propose it again!
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf Again, I appreciate
your sympathy, but when even your friends keep telling you to do things
you've already done, as though they never happened, it's frustrating.
So I proposed it, and indeed I was again told (informally) that the IP
is the sticking point (but the official document voted on,
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html, is still
about "dignity.") Various past rejections, when they were recorded in
the minutes (I don't think they always were) *did* indeed say that IP
was the main problem, and I'll have to look back to see if they were
explicit about what exactly Paramount needs to agree to, since
apparently I don't understand that as well as I thought I did. The
official response to 20-181? It's at
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20172.htm, and says, "UTC took no action."
So, "formally propose it again"? Check. "Get a rejection that
explicitly notes..."? That isn't up to me, and I guess that's why I'm
speaking up here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode