<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/2021 4:56 PM, Markus Scherer
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN49p6rGkkk36N2qeRscek98399zmRJO2Y+OuABmAPhZctZfMA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I have not been following the status of Klingon
encoding closely, but it seems like a few things have changed
since the early days:
<div>- we have decisively moved beyond the BMP, and are now at
nearly 145k assigned characters</div>
<div>- we have encoded, and then greatly expanded, emoji, for
which many of us (including some early proposers) where
"holding our noses"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This suggests to me that we have a slightly lower bar
for "invented" and "frivolous" characters than 20 years ago.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(Although, usage for Klingon is magnitudes lower than where
usage of emoji was even before adding them in Unicode 6.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>markus</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Candara">I think "frivolous" is really the wrong way
to think about this issue.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Unicode's proper role is to be universalist
in supporting *de-facto* styles of written communication.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">That's not saying "anything goes" but it is
saying that if real users have real communications in a writing
system that fits the plain-text model, it is something that
shouldn't be brushed aside.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">You can always argue about what constitutes
real communication. Emoji are instructive in the way certain
subsets of users really use them in ways that goes quite clearly
beyond mere "decorative" use. And their use isn't limited to
communication about emoji or about one special subject.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">If the only evidence for use of an
"invented" script is the minutes of the fan-club for said
script, that might not rise to the level; if there are multiple
people authoring books (or their equivalent) in that writing
system and have a substantial circle of readers, refusing
encoding would seem churlish - given that much of the extensions
to scripts (invented so long ago so as to leave the act of their
invention forgotten) may also be based on a few books.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Where I see the objection is towards writing
systems for which the use and adoption is "hoped for". Those
have a good chance of being vaporware and have no business being
standardized in a permanent way.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">I did a cursory check on the online presence
in social media of some of the more speculative (general use)
scripts or script revivals for which Unicode has encoded
characters. That story is decidedly uneven, with the level of
actual distributed adoption and use differing markedly from the
enthusiasm of some of the proponents.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">A successful proposal for an invented script
cannot point to such online use (as Unicode is a gating factor)
but what evidence can be adduced should allow a strong inference
that such use is more than just likely, for example.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">It's an interesting subject, short of easy
bright lines.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Like so much in Unicode.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">A./<br>
</font></p>
</body>
</html>