On 11/08/2016 06:58 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2016-11-08, Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]> 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 though they have not actually followed through on that
yet, perhaps because of these very IP concerns. Notably, pIqaD is not
The Tolkien Estate considers that the tengwar constitute a work of
art, and it's not willing to see them in Unicode, because this would
hinder its ability to pursue people using tengwar for what it
considers inappropriate purposes. (I finally asked them a couple of
years ago for permission to encode, based on Michael Everson's draft
proposal from yonks ago, and that's the summary of their reply.)
I've said it before: if we could get pIqaD at leasr on the same footing
as tengwar, that would be a step in the right direction. Saying they're
in a similar fix is (currently) blatantly contradicted by the facts, and
we might as well clear up whatever *else* it is that's holding pIqaD
back, and then see about IP problems.
It sounds like some progress is being made in this front.
~mark
