<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/21 6:07 PM, Ken Whistler via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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to have motion 87-M3 rescinded, thereby making it permissible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>
<p>Oh, I'm fine with not knowing where it'll end up. I'm just
trying to proceed to whatever extent is possible, and I understood
you to mean that before anything can be done, we have to get 87-M3
rolled back, because until then nobody can even contemplate any
progress. If discussing it on its merits is possible now, I'm
certainly all for doing so, and indeed that's why I submitted
L2/20-181 (admittedly, hoping that merits were going to be enough,
which doesn't appear to be the case.) That was the discussion I
had hoped to have at UTC#164. Is it something that can be
discussed now?<br>
</p>
<p>Hm. I probably just copied the codepoints from earlier
iterations; I should have switched to the xx00 notation, as you
say.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net">
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:72aee262-86d4-3562-a999-53198dd24eeb@shoulson.com"><br>
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 12px;" lang="x-unicode"> 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>
</blockquote>
<p>Mm. So, victim of its own success, then (in the sense of
vigorous pursuit of encoding while Tolkien scripts didn't have
such advocacy (because they didn't need it, being sort of presumed
suitable for encoding.)) And I'll admit it straight out: Tolkien
scripts, IMO, deserve encoding more than Klingon does. But that
doesn't mean one needs to wait for the other. (That's my
subjective opinion, and I don't think it can count as an answer to
my question about what the difference in treatment is based on.)<br>
</p>
<p>The "early poster child for what was considered 'frivolous'
encoding" is (obviously) the label I am most eager to shed, and I
hope to hear at least some recognition of non-frivolity or else
non-recognition of frivolity (or failing that, *reasonable*
arguments and debate on the subject.) Perhaps that's part of why
repealing 87-M3 would seem so important. It wouldn't really move
things closer to encoding, but it would lift the stigma of being
singled out as "too frivolous," even though the ostensible reason
given for 87-M3 was lack of usage.</p>
<p>Which I guess brings things back full-circle. If the reason for
87-M3 is no longer valid, why refuse to rescind it?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:28b3be1b-fc13-ecb2-cbcc-008d43452f2e@sonic.net">
<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.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Isn't that kind of embarrassing for an organization that
claims/aspires to some measure of cultural neutrality and support
for minority cultures?</p>
<p>~mark<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>