<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">I agree with Mark Davis. I am often asked about moving forward with Klingon, and all I can say is that I have not found a way to get an answer to the right question. <br><br><div dir="ltr">Michael Everson<div>http://evertype.com</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 16 Sep 2021, at 00:23, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode <unicode@corp.unicode.org> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif">> <span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">As I already noted, this imagined issue of "dignity" is offensive beyond belief from a group that's supposedly culturally neutral. </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif">Let's be very clear. This is an open list where most of the people on the list are simply expressing their opinions. These opinions are too often pure speculation that simply builds on other speculation voiced on this list. With little or no factual foundation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif">This "dignity" explanation is of that sort. I was around during the discussions, and there was never any mention of "dignity" as being a factor. The principal reason for not progressing Klingon was in fact IP complications. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif">And those are still a barrier: there is no point in even starting to consider the Klingon script unless and until the IP problem is completely resolved.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif"><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="'times new roman', serif"><div style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-right:0px"><div></div></div><div style="background-color:transparent;margin-top:0px;margin-left:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-right:0px">Mark</div></font><div><div><font face="'times new roman', serif"><i><span style="font-style:normal"><i></i></span><i></i></i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 1:43 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 9/15/21 3:17 PM, Doug Ewell via
Unicode wrote:
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>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>
</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>
<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>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>