Re: Klingon silliness

From: David Starner (
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 19:33:53 EST

On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:35:43PM -0800, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
> At 12:11 26-02-2001 -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
> >It's silly to even consider Klingon for Unicode or 10646.
> Nah, it's not silly. It's offensive.
> Back when I suggested that 'ch' be added to Unicode, I received
> a ton of replies why that should not be. That despite the fact
> in Slovak 'ch' has a one-to-one correspondence to a letter
> in the Cyrillic alphabet used by many other Slavic languages.
> It also has a one-to-one correspondence to a letter in the Greek
> alphabet, in the Glagolitic alphabet, and in the Hebrew alphabet,
> and, heck, even in the damn Klingon alphabet!
> I find it offensive that Klingon is more important to Unicode
> Consortium than a human language. The way I see it, as long as
> the proposal is not rejected, it is still being seriously considered.

The Klingon script (for better or worse) is not encoded in Unicode, and
there exists an active need (no matter how minor) for it to be encoded.
The Slovak 'ch' is encoded in Unicode, and any proposal for it to be
encoded is pointless.
> For the record, the active status of the Klingon alphabet is *the*
> reason why I stopped any work on any Unicode software, and have no
> intention of updating any of my past software that has anything to
> do with Unicode.

Bah. Life requires compromise. There are many people working on
Unicode, each with their own reasons. To stop working on Unicode
because someone else finds something a cool idea that you don't is
absurd, especially when that cool idea is going nowhere officially.

David Starner -
Pointless website:
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

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