AW: Difference between Klingon and Tengwar

[Mark E. Shoulson]

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.

~mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20210923/606e9698/attachment.htm>