<DougEwell2@cs.com> writes:
> I do feel that there is a difference between:
>
> (a) scripts like Shavian and Deseret, which were invented in a completely
> serious vein, in an attempt to provide an alternative and presumably
better
> means of writing a real language, but didn't quite catch on; and
>
> (b) truly "fictional" scripts like Klingon, Tengwar, Cirth, and such that
> appear in novels or TV or movies and were never intended to be used
seriously.
I agree. The first are monuments to men's ego, like the great statue to
Ozymandius, failed attempts to improve the world by fiat. The second are
monuments to men's greatness, offerings of joy and entertainment to the
world, offerings that were gladly accepted, offerings that actually improved
the world.
> I do believe that "original intent" has something to do with the
legitimacy
> of a script for consideration in Unicode.
Why? IMO, characters and scripts should be encoded based on whether people
are actually using them today, and will actually be using them tomorrow.
(Roughly the same principle as "not [...] idiosyncratic, personal, novel,
rarely exchanged, or private-use characters, nor [...] logos or graphics.")
There are a lot of political reasons why some characters or scripts
shouldn't be encoded - they shouldn't matter.
-- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 13:48:07 EDT