Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 3 Nov 2016, at 23:43, Mark Shoulson wrote: > Michael Everson: I basically copied your 1997 proposal into the document, > with some minor changes. I hope you don't mind. I do not. > And if you don't want to be on the hook for providing the glyphs to UTC, I > can do that. I

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 16 Nov 2016, at 01:47, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > The defensiveness was not that Tolkienian scholarship was deemed "worthy", > but more that Klingon's apparently was not. Back in the day? No. It wasn’t. > There was a Roadmap with pIqaD on it, and indeed you were the one who

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 08:29 PM, Michael Everson wrote: Mark, No need to be defensive. Tengwar and Cirth are in there because *I* put them there *long ago*, and the argument made was the nature of Tolkien’s work and study of it. That remains valid for keeping there, for one day the Tolkien Estate may

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 08:26 PM, Shawn Steele wrote: As I understand the issue, the problem is less of whether or not it is legal, then whether or not Paramount might sue. Whether Unicode wins or not, it would still cost money to defend. There ought to be laws against suits brought just to

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

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 07:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote: A body of a particular kind of scholarship surrounds Tolkien’s oeuvre. That’s probably the reason. Michael Everson Ah. So it *is* a matter of "some literature is better than others." I repeat here all the stuff I said in my response to Asmus'

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 07:31 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: > However, it appears relatively settled that one cannot claim copyright in an alphabet... We know that these parties tend to be litigious, so we have to be careful. "relatively settled" is not good enough. We do not want to be the ones

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

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

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 01:21 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote: On 11/15/2016 9:22 AM, Peter Constable wrote: Klingon _/should not/_ be encoded so long as there are open IP issues. For that reason, I think it would be premature to place it in the roadmap. Peter, I certainly sympathize with the fact that

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

A body of a particular kind of scholarship surrounds Tolkien’s oeuvre. That’s probably the reason. Michael Everson

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 12:22 PM, Peter Constable wrote: Klingon _/should not/_ be encoded so long as there are open IP issues. For that reason, I think it would be premature to place it in the roadmap. Then why is tengwar there, and Klingon proclaimed "unsuitable" for encoding? Everyone's telling

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

> However, it appears relatively settled that one cannot claim copyright in an alphabet... We know that these parties tend to be litigious, so we have to be careful. "relatively settled" is not good enough. We do not want to be the ones responsible (and liable) for making a determination as to

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/15/2016 9:22 AM, Peter Constable wrote: Klingon _should not_ be encoded so long as there are open IP issues. For that reason, I think it would be premature to place it in the roadmap.

RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Peter Constable wrote: > Klingon _should not_ be encoded so long as there are open IP issues. > For that reason, I think it would be premature to place it in the > roadmap. But Mark's point about removing it from the "Not the Roadmap" page, which categorizes it among "Scripts (or pseudoscripts)

RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Klingon _should not_ be encoded so long as there are open IP issues. For that reason, I think it would be premature to place it in the roadmap. Peter From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:m...@kli.org] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:10 PM To: Mark Davis ☕️ ; Shawn Steele

RE: Possible to add new precomposed characters for local language in Togo?

Marcel Schneider wrote: > For lack of anything better, and faced with Microsoftʼs one weekʼs > silence, I now suggest to make a wider use of the Vietnamese text > representation scheme that Microsoft implemented for Vietnamese, that > is documented in TUS [1], The entire "documentation" of this

Re: Possible to add new precomposed characters for local language in Togo?

Hi Martin, On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:23:58 +0900, Martin J. Dürst wrote: […] > I'm sorry, but I didn't get the fragment identifiers (#G19663, #G17544) > to work. Can you tell me which pages/paragraphs you refer to here? Sorry for the omission of the page number! In the document pagination of TUS

Re: Possible to add new precomposed characters for local language in Togo?

Hello Marcel, On 2016/11/12 07:35, Marcel Schneider wrote: For lack of anything better, and faced with Microsoftʼs one weekʼs silence, I now suggest to make a wider use of the Vietnamese text representation scheme that Microsoft implemented for Vietnamese, that is documented in TUS [1], and