Date: Sun May 24 2009 - 06:04:39 CDT
Quoting "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On 21 May 2009, at 19:53, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>> 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.
> People (me included, with my iPhone) actually exchange data with the
> "emoji" characters.
> Klingonists use the Latin alphabet. And they haven't even worked out
> a decent way to deal with data exchange, since <q> and <Q> are
> different letters in the Latin alphabet for Klingon. Klingon
> definitely needs a spelling reform.
Strictly speaking this suggests the need to encode a Klingon <q> and
<Q>, based on what you say they are in use, and have different
At the end of the day when and who makes a proposal can sometimes make
a difference to acceptance or rejection, not less because proposals
from certain bodies implies wide usage, and all human instutuitions
change with time . Aswell one should note that a rejected proposal has
to make up a lot of lost ground.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 24 2009 - 06:10:02 CDT