Re: Klingon silliness

From: Tex Texin (
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 16:23:00 EST

Perhaps the real question is what is the criteria for including or
excluding a fictional script. I have deleted John's mail, but
his criteria applied more broadly than Klingon if I recall.

Should we worry about elvish communication and not Klingon?
Do we apply a business case to fictional scripts and not
to other scripts?

I think if we had a more objective criteria that we could apply
we could rule yes or
no, without regard for the gentleness of the proposer or the
fierceness of the warriors that would use it.

But we are not there yet...

Rick McGowan wrote:
> Let me throw my light weight in with John O'Conner...
> It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or 10646. Many members of
> both committees know this, and that's why it hasn't moved anywhere in
> several years. The question keeps cropping up because that silly proposal
> is still "on the books".
> If it were up to me alone, I would put that proposal in the bin of things
> that have been politely refused. The fact that it has not yet gone to the
> great bit-bucket in the sky probably reflects the general esteem in which
> the gentlebeing who proposed it is held.
> I have said repeatedly over the years, that I will enterain the encoding
> of Klingon when the tribble-kissing wimps at the Klingon High Command beam
> an armed delegation into a UTC meeting and demand the encoding of their
> script. Until then, I see no reason to consider encoding this script.
> Rick

According to Murphy, nothing goes according to Hoyle.
Tex Texin                      Director, International Business      +1-781-280-4271 Fax:+1-781-280-4655
Progress Software Corp.        14 Oak Park, Bedford, MA 01730 #1 Embedded Database

Globalization Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:19 EDT