Re: The (Klingon) Empire Strikes Back

On 11/08/2016 06:58 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2016-11-08, Mark E. Shoulson <mark_at_kli.org> 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
Received on Sun Nov 13 2016 - 15:57:32 CST