Re: Emoji: Klingon vs. emoji (was Re: Emoji survey)

From: James Kass (
Date: Mon Dec 29 2008 - 17:29:40 CST

Mark E. Shoulson wrote,

>> A Google search of ConScript Klingon PUA strings is disallowed,
>> so this essential tool for determining web presence is disabled.
> is still up, though out of date (chicken and
>egg problem: there isn't much material out there encoded as pIqaD partly
>because pIqaD isn't encoded)... The back issues of Qo'noS QonoS at
> are available in pIqaD by appending "?mode=UTF"
>to each URL (I don't think I have links to it directly; it isn't
>supported after all). (Anyone who says that the translation of
>transliteration into PUA proves that encoding is unnecessary is welcome
>to scrap Unicode entirely and go back to all-ASCII days.)

If my understanding is correct, there is nothing concerning
Klingon in front of the encoding committees right now. An
earlier Klingon encoding proposal was rejected, and there is
no new proposal yet.

Although some of us on this list like to have a bit of fun now
and then, tossing about thinly veiled barbs as part of our
spirited rhetoric, the encoding process is generally perceived
to be a fair process. Any proposal should be judged on its
merits. Arguments supporting or rejecting any proposal should
likewise be judged on their respective merits, rather than the
personalities of the arguers.

It is expected that any proposal, be it Klingon or emoji, should
be subject to painstaking examination. Supporting documentation
and exhibits should be well-rounded and every effort should be
taken to ensure that the numbers, such as estimated usage figures,
are accurate.

Recent informal web searching surveys lead me to believe that
there is more PUA Klingon text appearing in web pages now than
was previously the case. Some bloggers concerned with Klingon
script text exchange have raised the possibility of generating
a new proposal for consideration.

If usage figures support inclusion into the Standard, I'd like to
believe that such a proposal would be well-received. If usage figures
do not support inclusion at this time, then the ConScript PUA will
just have to do for now.

Klingon (pIqaD) is an artificial script. In other words, it is a
script made by human beings. All scripts are 'artificial', then.

The Klingon language is an artificial language; it is a language
constructed by human beings.

The Klingon script is a terrestrial writing system. Some human
beings are using the script in web pages (using non-standard PUA
code points).

It appears to be true that most Klingon language data exchange
is done using Latin transliteration rather than the pIqaD. So
the question for any serious proposal remains, how many users
are actually exchanging pIqaD text?

<now, back to the thinly veiled barbs and poking a bit of fun at
the emoji proposal>

There are tens of millions of humans with access to the internet.
Any one of those tens of millions of humans may select an
appropriate font and application and just "go to town" with
writing, storing, and exchanging Klingon text. Therefore,
there are tens of millions of users out there, just clamoring
for standardized Klingon code points. If Unicode continues
to reject Klingon, then Unicode fails in its efforts to be

Best regards,

James Kass

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 15:33:07 CST