Re: Klingon

From: Chris Jacobs (chris.jacobs@freeler.nl)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 08:53:07 EST

Next message: Ram Viswanadha: "Re: OT, utterly OT"

Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Samaritan Pentateuch sign (perhaps shin, not shan)"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Reply: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Klingon"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

WHY THEN DISTRIBUTES THE KLI SUCH A BLATANTLY UNCONFORMANT FONT?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Klingon

> At 11:15 +0100 2004-01-15, Chris Jacobs wrote:
>
> > > I had a problem with this too, for a while (previous discussion on this
> >> list helped clear it up). Klingon letters had been placed in the PUA by
> >> the CSUR (ConsScript Unicode Registry, an unofficial allocation of PUA
> >> space to constructed alphabets),
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >And did the Klingon Language Institute endorse that?
>
> Yes. See http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/klingon.html
> The original encoding was made for some Linux implementation in 1995
> or 1996 I suppose.
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
>
>

Next message: Ram Viswanadha: "Re: OT, utterly OT"
Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Samaritan Pentateuch sign (perhaps shin, not shan)"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Klingon"
Reply: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Klingon"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 10:36:07 EST