Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

e sure." > > -Shawn > > -Original Message- > From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark E. > Shoulson > Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 5:19 PM > To: unicode@unicode.org > Subject: Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back > > On 11/15/2016 0

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

er 13, 2016 2:10 PM > *To:* Mark Davis ☕️ <m...@macchiato.com> <m...@macchiato.com>; Shawn > Steele <shawn.ste...@microsoft.com> <shawn.ste...@microsoft.com> > *Cc:* Peter Constable <peter...@microsoft.com> <peter...@microsoft.com>; > David Fau

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Cc: Peter Constable <peter...@microsoft.com>; David Faulks <davidj_fau...@yahoo.ca>; Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org> Subject: Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

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

Steele <shawn.ste...@microsoft.com> Cc: Peter Constable <peter...@microsoft.com>; David Faulks <davidj_fau...@yahoo.ca>; Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org> Subject: Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back On 11/10/2016 02:34 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: The committee doesn't &

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

@kli.org <mailto:m...@kli.org>>; David Faulks <davidj_fau...@yahoo.ca <mailto:davidj_fau...@yahoo.ca>> *Cc:* Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org <mailto:unicode@unicode.org>> *Subject:* RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back *From:*Unicode [ma

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/09/2016 11:49 PM, Peter Constable wrote: *From:*Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark E. Shoulson *Sent:* Friday, November 4, 2016 1:18 PM ** > At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem… You saying that potential IP issues are not Unicode’s problem does not

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/08/2016 06:58 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote: On 2016-11-08, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: I've heard that there are similar questions regarding tengwar and cirth, but it is notable that UTC *did* see fit to consider this question for them and determine that they were worthy of

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

As Unicode will actually not encode the language itself, but just the characters there's no problem at all in terms of IP, except for the representative glyphs if they use the protected graphic designs. Everything else is free, including the name that Unicode will choose for designating the

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

; > -Shawn > > > > *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Peter > Constable > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:49 PM > *To:* Mark E. Shoulson <m...@kli.org>; David Faulks < > davidj_fau...@yahoo.ca> > *Cc:* Unicode Mailing Li

RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

, November 9, 2016 8:49 PM To: Mark E. Shoulson <m...@kli.org>; David Faulks <davidj_fau...@yahoo.ca> Cc: Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org> Subject: RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson Sent:

RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 1:18 PM > At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem… You saying that potential IP issues are not Unicode’s problem does not in fact make it not a problem. A statement in writing from

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

I believe there's already a court ruling that say languages and words are not copyrightablein the case about loglan, although the trademarkability of an language is another matter. 2016年11月5日 01:42 於 "David Faulks" 寫道： > > On Thu, 11/3/16, Mark Shoulson

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 2016-11-08, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > I've heard that there are similar questions regarding tengwar and cirth, > but it is notable that UTC *did* see fit to consider this question for > them and determine that they were worthy of encoding (they are on the > roadmap), even

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Thanks, Asmus. The document from the copyright office is pretty explicit and final, and it is pretty clear that you can't copyright an *alphabet*, that is *characters*. You can copyright *glyphs* (a font), but that is another matter entirely. I've heard that there are similar questions

RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Shawn Steele wrote: > The PUA encoding makes it difficult or hacky to integrate some > features for the Piqd script in computing libraries, such as digit > conversion routines. Although somebody did create a Ewellic calculator for iOS that uses the ConScript encoding:

RE: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

I guess for this thread I should subscribe to the list with a personal email address. Please don’t confuse my personal and professional opinions here ;) (Of course I’ll probably confuse them myself). Personally, as myself, no Microsoft hat, I would be interested to see the base

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/6/2016 2:22 PM, David Starner wrote: On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:42 AM David Faulks wrote: There is another issue of course, which I think could be a

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:42 AM David Faulks wrote: > There is another issue of course, which I think could be a huge obstacle: > the Trademark/Copyright issue. Paramount claims copyright over the entire > Klingon language (presumably including the script). The issue has

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/04/2016 05:02 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Mark E. Shoulson wrote: At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem. Unicode would not be creating anything in Klingon anyway! Well, to be fair, I thought IPR was the primary reason Unicode had never encoded the Apple logo either. I doubt that whether

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > At any rate, this isn't Unicode's problem. Unicode would not be > creating anything in Klingon anyway! Well, to be fair, I thought IPR was the primary reason Unicode had never encoded the Apple logo either. I doubt that whether Unicode intended to use such a character

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

I know of the Axanar flap. I'm not sure that Paramount was *seriously* saying "we own everything anyone ever says or will say in this language." What they said was more "you used Klingon in your story, and Klingon is our language, therefore your story is infringing on our stuff." So while

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

May be but it is still relevant : what is the purpose of these invented Kilngon ampersands: aren't they ligatures or abbreviation marks like the "-que", different from the "et" (&) ligature in Latin ? We have "&" encoded only because it exists in ASCII and it is used as a distinctive isolated

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

Yes, it isn't unique to Klingon, I never said it was, and who cares that Latin also has it?? We weren't talking about Latin! ~mark On 11/03/2016 08:06 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2016-11-04 0:43 GMT+01:00 Mark Shoulson >: 3. For my part, I've invented a

Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

2016-11-04 0:43 GMT+01:00 Mark Shoulson : > 3. For my part, I've invented a pair of ampersands for Klingon (Klingon > has two words for "and": one for joining verbs/sentences and one for > joining nouns (the former goes between its "conjunctands", the latter after > them)), from