Michael Everson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]wrote:
> What has fictionality have to do with it? The criteria for encoding rest
> primarily in the area of information interchange. Now it seems perhaps not
> very likely that most users of Klingon (which is a language people learn
> and use whether anyone else likes it or not; it's no worse than Volapük or
> Esperanto just because it's invented) actually employ the Klingon script.
> But Tengwar and Cirth are "fictional" scripts which are used and studied by
> linguists and enthusiasts, and there are manuscripts containing text
> written in these that people want to digitize and so on....
> Arguably, more has been written in and about Tengwar and Cirth than has
> been written about the "non-fictional" Elbasan or Nsibidi scripts
OK but at present I think the acceptance and adoption of Unicode / ISO 10646 is
far more important. If the encoding of these scripts undermines the credibility
of these standards and gives people the excuse some are looking for not to
adopt them, let's leave them out at least until ISO 10646 / Unicode is THE
standard character set.
Meanwhile there is the PUA and conventions for it's use such as ConScript.
Once ISO 10646 is the universally adopted character set there would be no harm
in officially encoding these scripts.
Meanwhile, have there been any actual implementations of Klingon, Tengwar,
Cirth etc based on the Conscript encoding?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:15 EDT