From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 19:36:42 CDT
> I see little interest for now in supporting Klingon,
True. In part because the Klingon *script* is so poorly
defined that it hardly deserves the term "script", and I've
never seen a decent proposal for it that made any sense.
In part because Klingon the concept is so radioactive that
it makes business managers and European standardizers go
ballistic, so even considering it is counterproductive to
the development of the standard. But mostly because Klingon
the *language* has always been supported fully by Unicode --
in fact the Roman (note, *not* Romulan! ;-) ) orthography for
Klingon was designed by Marc Okrand to work in ASCII characters
or with a basic English typewriter.
> but Tengwar is
> apparently used significantly by a quite large and active community of users
> in various countries, notably to write French or English ...
And unlike Klingon, Tengwar *is* a well-defined script ... which
accounts in large part for why so many people are actually
The UTC has seen encoding proposals for Tengwar, and the script
is in the Roadmap. In my opinion there isn't much blocking
it from being encoded eventually, except for modeling concerns
about the modes of use of Tengwar, and because resolving those
issues for Tengwar have been lower priority than working on
a number of minority and historic scripts for Unicode 5.0.
Note also that Unicode's lack of support for the Tengwar
*script* is not an indication that it lacks support for
the French, English, or Elvish *languages* -- any of which
can be and are in fact widely written using the Latin script. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 19:37:40 CDT