Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 08:15 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2016 10:21 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>> Finally, I really can't understand the reluctance to place anything
>> in the roadmap. An entry in the roadmap is not a commitment to
>> anything - many scripts listed there face enormous obstacles before
>> they could even reach the stage of a well-founded proposal. And,
>> until such a proposal exists, there's no formal determination that a
>> script has a truly separate identity and meets the bar for encoding.
>
> The barrier to putting it in the roadmap is the that it pIQaD is
> currently listed on *not*-the-roadmap:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/not-the-roadmap/
>
> as Mark Shoulsen has been repeatedly pointing out.
>
> It would be inconsistent to add it to the SMP roadmap unless we delete
> it from not-the-roadmap.
>
> And the reason that step has been stuck is because the UTC is still on
> record with a nonapproval notice for the Klingon script from 2001.
> (Based on Consensus 87-M3.)
>
> http://www.unicode.org/alloc/nonapprovals.html
>
> So figure it out, folks. First bring to the UTC a proposal to reverse
> 87-M3. (Not to *encode* pIQaD yet -- just, on the basis of the new,
> more mature proposal, to *entertain* appropriate discussion about
> suitability for encoding, by rescinding the prior determination of
> nonapproval.) If *that* proposal passed, then the nonapproval notice
> would also be dropped. If the nonapproval notice is dropped, the
> not-the-roadmap entry would be dropped. And if that is dropped, then
> the Roadmap committee would dig around for a tentative allocation
> slot, pending the determination of outcome for any other issues. Which
> then could focus on the next obstacle, which is IP and the unresolved
> risk of litigation.

So.... now the problem *isn't* the IP. All along I've been saying that
UTC needs to decide that pIqaD *should* be encoded first, without
consideration of the IP issues, and *then* we can worry about dealing
with the IP. And the answers I got were all about how we can't do
*anything* until this IP stuff is dealt with. And now Ken Whistler
comes and says what I said in the first place! At least someone was
paying attention.

So... Now it's not enough to propose that pIqaD get encoded, like any
other script would need. First we need a proposal to *permit* a
proposal for encoding? Um. OK. What should such a thing look like?
Perhaps something like the document I submitted, showing lots of usage
and asking if it could be considered now? I originally wasn't going to
append the full proposal to the document, but it was suggested to me
that it would be expected.

Should I split the document up into two pieces and re-submit the two
halves, one as a proposal, and one for permission to consider the
proposal? Would that satisfy the requirements?

> In any case, folks should stop with with "Unfair! Unfair!" stuff, and
> just set to work, step-by-step, to deal with the items noted above. "A
> Klingon is trained to use everything around them to their advantage."
> O.k., I've just provided something useful -- go for it. And you won't
> even need a cloaking device.

I've been working with whatever I could find all along. The unfairness
is a recognized fact, apparently, that can finally be faced and fixed,
or so I hope. I'm trying to get this done; best I can do is answer the
questions put to me and look how other scripts in similar situations
(like Tolkien scripts) have done what they did.

~mark
Received on Tue Nov 15 2016 - 19:31:35 CST