From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 21 2009 - 16:15:59 CDT
John H. Jenkins wrote:
> ¦b May 21, 2009 12:53 PM ®É¡A Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven ¼g¨ì¡G
>> If the Consortium is adamant on adding the emoji stuff to the
>> standard, I
>> honestly cannot see why something like Klingon, which actually has
>> could not be encoded.
> Fundamentally it's because the speakers don't use the script.
So I know for future reference, how much do I have to show as a
counterexample for that? http://qurgh.blogspot.com/ has not been updated
in a long time (neither has Linear B), but it's still there.
http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Chatting+in+pIqaD is there so as to
enable such usage. Apparently (I only just discovered this) at least
some of the pages in http://mughom.wikia.com/wiki/ list pIqaD as well as
Latin transcriptions (e.g. http://mughom.wikia.com/wiki/wejpuH).
http://blogs.msdn.com/photos/shawnste/picture535604.aspx shows what
appears to be an honest attempt to translate a locale (the words are not
gibberish). http://www.btinternet.com/~qeSan/ has a lexicon for looking
up words in each system. http://www.kli.org/QQ/?mode=UTF presents the
issues of Qo'noS QonoS in pIqaD.
I realize that this is a pretty small selection (Keep in mind the
chicken-and-egg issue, though). I just want to know sorta where the
dividing line is between "nobody uses it" and "people use it" so I'll
know when it gets crossed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 21 2009 - 16:18:43 CDT