Re: Mixed up priorities

From: G. Adam Stanislav (
Date: Thu Oct 21 1999 - 22:28:08 EDT

At 16:32 21-10-1999 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote:
>For the record, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
>> when I suggested to treat 'CH' as a character [...]
>> I was swamped with the reasons why that should not be the case,
>> but at the same time it is apparently OK to encode fictional
>> "alphabets" such as Klingon in Unicode.
>That's not the way it is. The UTC has not approved Klingon, nor endorsed
>it, not discussed Everson's proposal officially in meetings.


I did not say it was part of Unicode. I was referring to the discussion in
this forum. Some time ago I mentioned here that "ch" is a character in
Slovak and received a lot of responses telling me essentially I did not
know what I was talking about. Now I see a discussion about why Klingon
should seriously be made part of the standard. A discussion in this forum,
that is.

> A number of
>representatives, such as myself, are strongly opposed to the willy-nilly
>encoding of "pop culture" scripts such as Klingon. It is VASTLY more
>important to encode a number of real minority scripts of the world.

Agreed! I am, by the way, not opposed to the inclusion of Klingon if there
is enough people who need it (which I do not know much about). But, like
you, I think we need to deal with real languages first. I am also afraid
that if we include one fictional language, we will have a number of
proposals for other fictional languages, and a lot of bruised egos when
some are turned down while others accepted.

>> I guess linguistic reasons are secondary to popularity reasons.
>Again, no. The treatment of C+H in the Latin script is a completely
>different topic than the encoding of entire scripts, so please understand
>this difference.

Again, I meant in this forum. Back then, by the way, I was proposing to
include CH in existing space, there is just enough room for it in the page
that contains DZ and DZ with caron.

Although, quite frankly, after receiving such a negative response to my
proposal (back when I made it here), I figured it would make no sense to
turn it into a formal proposal. Perhaps I should have...



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT