RE: Klingons and their allies - Beyond 17 planes

From: Jill Ramonsky (
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 04:47:00 CST

So, if I have understood this correctly (which is by no means certain),
these tag characters were added to Unicode in the vague hope that some
people might one day start using them, or on the off-chance that someone
might one day need them. This seems a far cry from the demand that
actual printed publications must appear in a given script before Unicode
will accept it. The reason given for the rejection of Klingon doesn't
seem to have been applied to the tag characters.

So what's the explanation for this discrepency then? Hypocracy?
Prejudice? Please enlighten me.

Alternatively, maybe I've misunderstood and there is, in fact, no such
requirement that a script appear in published books before it may be
added to Unicode ... in which case, of course, it cannot be used as an
argument for the Consortium's rejection of Klingon.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk []
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: Jill Ramonsky
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Klingons and their allies - Beyond 17 planes
> On 20/10/2003 02:10, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> >
> > I challenge you to find a document or script which used the
> characters
> > represented by codepoints U+E0020 to U+E007F /before/ their
> inclusion
> > in Unicode.
> >
> > In point of fact, I challenge you to find any document, script,
> > application, or indeed any use whatsoever for certain particular of
> > these tag characters. Name me one document in which the character
> > U+E0040 (tag commerical at) or U+E007C (tag vertical line)
> is used. At
> > all.
> >
> > Jill
> >
> It depends what is considered to be a tag. Currently only
> language tags
> are defined in Unicode. But if "Author" were considered to be a
> potentially definable tag, I could cite your posting as an example of
> the use of the logical character "tag commercial at", not of
> course as
> the Unicode character but as its logical equivalent in an alternative
> encoding and markup. For your posting included "@" in "From: Jill
> Ramonsky <>".
> --
> Peter Kirk
> (personal)
> (work)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST