The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back
Mark E. Shoulson
mark at kli.org
Tue Nov 15 19:31:21 CST 2016
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 could even reach the stage of a well-founded proposal. And,
>> until such a proposal exists, there's no formal determination that a
>> script has a truly separate identity and meets the bar for encoding.
> The barrier to putting it in the roadmap is the that it pIQaD is
> currently listed on *not*-the-roadmap:
> as Mark Shoulsen has been repeatedly pointing out.
> It would be inconsistent to add it to the SMP roadmap unless we delete
> it from not-the-roadmap.
> And the reason that step has been stuck is because the UTC is still on
> record with a nonapproval notice for the Klingon script from 2001.
> (Based on Consensus 87-M3.)
> So figure it out, folks. First bring to the UTC a proposal to reverse
> 87-M3. (Not to *encode* pIQaD yet -- just, on the basis of the new,
> more mature proposal, to *entertain* appropriate discussion about
> suitability for encoding, by rescinding the prior determination of
> nonapproval.) If *that* proposal passed, then the nonapproval notice
> would also be dropped. If the nonapproval notice is dropped, the
> not-the-roadmap entry would be dropped. And if that is dropped, then
> the Roadmap committee would dig around for a tentative allocation
> slot, pending the determination of outcome for any other issues. Which
> then could focus on the next obstacle, which is IP and the unresolved
> risk of litigation.
So.... now the problem *isn't* the IP. All along I've been saying that
UTC needs to decide that pIqaD *should* be encoded first, without
consideration of the IP issues, and *then* we can worry about dealing
with the IP. And the answers I got were all about how we can't do
*anything* until this IP stuff is dealt with. And now Ken Whistler
comes and says what I said in the first place! At least someone was
So... Now it's not enough to propose that pIqaD get encoded, like any
other script would need. First we need a proposal to *permit* a
proposal for encoding? Um. OK. What should such a thing look like?
Perhaps something like the document I submitted, showing lots of usage
and asking if it could be considered now? I originally wasn't going to
append the full proposal to the document, but it was suggested to me
that it would be expected.
Should I split the document up into two pieces and re-submit the two
halves, one as a proposal, and one for permission to consider the
proposal? Would that satisfy the requirements?
> In any case, folks should stop with with "Unfair! Unfair!" stuff, and
> just set to work, step-by-step, to deal with the items noted above. "A
> Klingon is trained to use everything around them to their advantage."
> O.k., I've just provided something useful -- go for it. And you won't
> even need a cloaking device.
I've been working with whatever I could find all along. The unfairness
is a recognized fact, apparently, that can finally be faced and fixed,
or so I hope. I'm trying to get this done; best I can do is answer the
questions put to me and look how other scripts in similar situations
(like Tolkien scripts) have done what they did.
More information about the Unicode