<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/23/21 2:49 PM, Shawn Steele via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR00MB1320587204C53E55B64C0DE482A39@SJ0PR00MB1320.namprd00.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Bierstadt;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.E-MailFormatvorlage21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif">Note
that Microsoft provided a pIqaD version of the Bing
translator as part of the Klingon translation, using the PUA
conscript codepoints. It was ‘my’ font, though it was also
available for free. It was up for years, though as
developers working on it moved it isn’t currently up. But
Microsoft had an agreement
</span><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI
Emoji",sans-serif">😊</span><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif"> (I
know there are translation quality issues, that’s out of my
control).</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, I was hoping maybe someone in Microsoft could help me find the
right people to talk to at Paramount.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR00MB1320587204C53E55B64C0DE482A39@SJ0PR00MB1320.namprd00.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif">There
was a brief conversation of the encoding at that time, but,
like Mark’s efforts, it didn’t really get to the right
people to sign off.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR00MB1320587204C53E55B64C0DE482A39@SJ0PR00MB1320.namprd00.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Bierstadt",sans-serif">I do
think that Mark makes some good points about the current
language of the rejection perhaps being a bit off-putting
for any future discussions should someone be able to contact
the right person at Paramount. IMO, perhaps it would be
good to formally propose it again, and get a rejection that
explicitly notes the primary concern is around the IP. And
hopefully doesn’t otherwise impugn the worthiness of the
proposal.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I *did* propose it again!
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20181-klingon.pdf</a> Again, I
appreciate your sympathy, but when even your friends keep telling
you to do things you've already done, as though they never
happened, it's frustrating.<br>
</p>
<p>So I proposed it, and indeed I was again told (informally) that
the IP is the sticking point (but the official document voted on,
<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>, is
still about "dignity.") Various past rejections, when they were
recorded in the minutes (I don't think they always were) *did*
indeed say that IP was the main problem, and I'll have to look
back to see if they were explicit about what exactly Paramount
needs to agree to, since apparently I don't understand that as
well as I thought I did. The official response to 20-181? It's at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20172.htm">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20172.htm</a>, and says, "UTC took no
action."</p>
<p>So, "formally propose it again"? Check. "Get a rejection that
explicitly notes..."? That isn't up to me, and I guess that's why
I'm speaking up here.<br>
</p>
~mark<br>
</body>
</html>