<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Mark,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/2021 2:31 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p> </p>
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 12px;" lang="x-unicode">So, pursuant to Ken
Whistler's advice from back in <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html</a>,
I submitted a request (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf</a>)
to have motion 87-M3 rescinded, thereby making it permissible at
least to discuss Klingon on its merits.
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that my advice from 2016 spoke to the issue of *roadmapping*
Klingon -- not the issue of discussing it on its merits. There is,
as far as I can tell, nothing which prohibits the latter. And in
fact you have a fairly recent document in the document register to
start that discussion: L2/20-181. All I would suggest is that
instead of insisting on trying to find a specific niche in the SMP
for it right now, you just adopt the xx00..xxFF convention that is
recommended for early proposals, anyway, to disconnect discussion
of the merits of encoding from any argument about precisely
*where* the allocation might end up.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 12px;" lang="x-unicode"> <br>
<br>
Although a formal response is yet to be recorded, I have been
informed that Unicode is declining to rescind its decision,
absent some sort of consent from Paramount, etc. And so I ask
again: can someone please tell me what the difference is between
Klingon and tengwar (or Cirth, etc) that one has this extra hoop
to jump through (getting the decision rescinded) and one
doesn't?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's pretty straightforward. The encoding of Tengwar and Cirth
have not ever been pursued so intently that the UTC was forced to
push back with a notice of non-approval (because of unresolved IP
issues). Klingon, on the other hand, was a case *both* for IP
issues interfering with a potential encoding that was being pushed
*and* was an early poster child for what was considered
"frivolous" encoding by many participants in SC2 as well as by
many senior managers who were paying the salaries of
representatives they were sending to UTC meetings.</p>
<p>You aren't going to find a distinction by rooting around in the
structure of the scripts themselves looking for objective
differences, nor by trying to distinguish them by details of IP
claims. The issues that matter are found in the social and
economic contexts of the encoding activities of the committees and
standardizers.</p>
<p>--Ken<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 12px;" lang="x-unicode"> As far as I know, tengwar
is in the same situation as regards intellectual property. If I
know how they're different, maybe I can see about getting
Klingon into line with it so they'll be in the same situation.
Can anyone help me find out what the difference is? <br>
<br>
~mark <br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>