From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
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
>> speakers,
>> 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.
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 21 2009 - 16:18:43 CDT