Tengwar on a general purpose translation site

[Ken Whistler]

On 3/9/2022 10:38 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Suppose a proposal works around any IP concerns, real or imaginary, by 
> using generic character names along the lines of CJK ideographs. Such as:
>
> U+xxx01  FICTIONAL CONSCRIPT CHARACTER-XXX01
> U+xxx02  FICTIONAL CONSCRIPT CHARACTER-XXX02
> and so forth.
>
> The charts covering the ranges could be blank with a footnote 
> explaining that the lack of glyphs is due to IP concerns.  The 
> proposal could refer to earlier proposals for usage examples and the 
> proposed range need not mention any author's name or copyrighted brands.
>
> Would such a proposal have any chance of moving forward towards 
> acceptance?

Well, insofar as this is attempt to "encode" characters without 
providing reference glyphs or names or any meaningful semantics, it 
isn't much different from just using:

U+F0001 <private-use-F0001>
U+F0002 <private-use-F0002>
...

I don't see the UTC going for this kind of pseudo-private-use concept. 
The whole point of *standardizing* characters is to spell out precisely 
what they are so that interchange is reliable.

--Ken

>
>
>