Tengwar on a general purpose translation site
kenwhistler at sonic.net
Wed Mar 9 12:57:26 CST 2022
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
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:
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.
More information about the Unicode