<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via
Unicode wrote:
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:000001d7aa66$5d1c7090$175551b0$@ewellic.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It seems fairly clear by now that the real blocking issue is the perception, or reaction to it, that encoding Klingon would be undignified to Unicode.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>And Asmus adds:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><font face="Candara">Well, I didn't know that Unicode had
"being high-brow" among its principles.</font></p>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>Indeed. As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is
offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally
neutral. If you took the sentence "encoding Klingon would be
undignified to Unicode" and replaced "Klingon" with, say "Adlam"
or "Yezidi" or "Mandombe", would anyone hesitate to call that
bigoted and unworthy of Unicode? "We shouldn't encode X languages
because only Y people speak them and we don't want to be
associated with them." Would it be okay to replace X="African"
and Y="dark-skinned"? Then how is it okay to have X="Star Trek"
and Y="geeks"? Would you let some people's disapproval of Yezidis
stop you from encoding Yezidi? Then why do you care about
people's disapproval of Klingon-speakers?</p>
<p>This horse is dead, and I need to stop beating it. But so long
as this somehow is actually allowed to remain an issue, there's
something very seriously wrong with how decisions are made.</p>
<p>Is Klingon literature not high-brow enough? How much research
was done to make that decision, how much did the Unicode
representatives read, and of what? And how much research did they
do to confirm the worthiness of Mro?</p>
<p>~mark<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>