Re Tengwar on a general purpose translation site

[stas]

 On Monday, March 7, 2022, 11:21:43 PM GMT+6, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> wrote:

> An updated proposal for Tengwar that claims it is being used for more than just decoration (a traditional argument against encoding Klingon pIqaD) may need to be supported with better language tools than this.

I disagree. The mere need to display Tengwar should be enough, even if it is "just" for a dictionary.
I don't understand such a bias against conscripts. Historic scripts need much less justification.
I think one of Albanian scripts is encoded even though there exists only one document in it (I may be wrong, that's how I remember it).  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20220307/e6c4db46/attachment.htm>