<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I don't think I was deeply involved in the discussions at the
time either, but see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html</a> for some
reactions:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Keeping Klingon on the books as "under
investigation" leaves both UTC and WG2 open to allegations of
frivolity -- see various quotes below. Every time the discussion
comes up, this is pointed out. Leaving it "on the books" is a
source of embarrassment requiring continual renewal of
explanation as to why it is even
under investigation.
</blockquote>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>To quote G. Adam Stanislav:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>>It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or
10646.</i>
</p>
<p> <i> Nah, it's not silly. It's offensive.</i>
</p>
<p> <i> I find it offensive that Klingon is more important to
Unicode Consortium than a human language. The way I see
it, as long as the proposal is not rejected, it is still
being seriously considered. For the record, the active
status of the Klingon alphabet is *the* reason why I
stopped any work on any Unicode software, [...]</i>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To quote John O'Connor:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><i> Knowing that the proposal has been placed on the back
burner, knowing that it isn't really taken seriously any
longer, in the true spirit of a Klingon, let us now kill
the proposal and thus leave it some dignity among its
supporters. Dragging it around in its weakened state,
knowing that it will not recover, is not honorable. It is
disgraceful. Some Klingon next-of-kin should step forward
here...encourage the consortium to let the proposal die
with honor, with dignity. It's the Klingon way... </i>
</p>
<p><i> Appealing to Klingon ethics and sentiment,<br>
John </i>
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As regards "<i>I find it offensive that Klingon is more important
to Unicode Consortium than a human language."</i>, that means we
have to prove, for every single thing we encode, that it is more
important than everything not yet encoded. Are characters from
the Ormulum more "important" than unencoded scripts? Do
characters from rarefied Qur'anic typography take precedence? Can
we really prove we're doing this "in order"?</p>
<p>Another one:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mail-archive.com/unicode@unicode.org/msg10345.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/unicode@unicode.org/msg10345.html</a></p>
<p>I'm taking these from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.opoudjis.net/Klingon/piqad.html">https://www.opoudjis.net/Klingon/piqad.html</a>, but alas, the links
there are all broken, and the wayback machine isn't helping.<br>
</p>
<p>I was responding to the "dignity" argument as mentioned by Doug
Ewell, and as he said, perhaps it is the wrong word. But the
argument remains the same, whatever you call it, and even if it
isn't what Ken was referring to, the above posts do imply that it
is a real thing.</p>
<p>~mark<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>