Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?

--0000000000003c49cd0652c00f05
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Klingon, Tengwar, and Cirth were rejected mainly because nobody wants to
deal with potential intellectual property issues. Sitelen Pona was rejected
because the proposal was barely even a proposal, plus it doesn=E2=80=99t ap=
pear to
be a very stable script
<https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2025/25010-script-wg-report.pdf#section6.6>. I
actually can=E2=80=99t find any proposals for Sarati at all.

I suppose the issue with scripts for conlangs (and just conlangs in
general) is that almost all of them are used by only a tiny number of
people, and only a tiny subset of *those* uses them for any =E2=80=9Cseriou=
s=E2=80=9D
purpose. With stuff like Volap=C3=BCk you can at least make the case that t=
here
exist documents with historic significance, but there=E2=80=99s simply not =
a lot of
incentive to put all that effort into supporting a writing system that=E2=
=80=99s
essentially just a diversion. Toki Pona is nobody=E2=80=99s first language,=
 and
from what I can tell the Latin alphabet is by far the most popular choice
for writing it anyway. Someone would need to demonstrate that the lack of
Sitelen Pona in Unicode actually causes material problems.

Am Di., 26. Mai 2026 um 23:08 Uhr schrieb Vikki McDonough via Unicode <
[email protected]>:

> Hai all!
>
> No offense meant to anyone personally, but why does Unicode seem to be
> biased against scripts devised for conlangs?  To the best of my knowledge=
, *every
> single time* such a script's been proposed for inclusion, it's ultimately
> been rejected (albeit with different levels of vehemence - Klingon and
> Sarati both ended up on the Not the Roadmap hall of shame [Klingon from
> each of *two separate* proposals], Sitelen Pona was merely rejected, and
> Tengwar and Corth actually made it into the roadmap to the SMP only to
> languish there for years before eventually being removed earlier this
> spring), even for those (like Klingon) with an active user base
> considerably larger than those of some obscure natural-language scripts
> that *do* get encoded.  (In contrast, conlangs that use an existing
> script do *occasionally* get their language-specific letters encoded,
> such as the Volap=C3=BCk-specific Latin letters already published in Unic=
ode.)
>
>
> - Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F
>

--0000000000003c49cd0652c00f05
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Klingon, Tengwar, and Cirth were rejected mainly beca=
use nobody wants to deal with potential intellectual property issues. Sitel=
en Pona was rejected because the proposal was barely even a proposal, plus =
<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2025/25010-script-wg-report.pdf#sect=
ion6.6">it doesn=E2=80=99t appear to be a very stable script</a>. I actuall=
y can=E2=80=99t find any proposals for Sarati at all.</div><div><br></div><=
div>I suppose the issue with scripts for conlangs (and just conlangs in gen=
eral) is that almost all of them are used by only a tiny number of people, =
and only a tiny subset of <i>those</i> uses them for any =E2=80=9Cserious=
=E2=80=9D purpose. With stuff like Volap=C3=BCk you can at least make the c=
ase that there exist documents with historic significance, but there=E2=80=
=99s simply not a lot of incentive to put all that effort into supporting a=
 writing system that=E2=80=99s essentially just a diversion. Toki Pona is n=
obody=E2=80=99s first language, and from what I can tell the Latin alphabet=
 is by far the most popular choice for writing it anyway. Someone would nee=
d to demonstrate that the lack of Sitelen Pona in Unicode actually causes m=
aterial problems.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_cont=
ainer"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Am Di., 26. Mai 2026 um 23:08=
=C2=A0Uhr schrieb Vikki McDonough via Unicode &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:unicode=
@corp.unicode.org">[email protected]</a>&gt;:<br></div><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px soli=
d rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>Hai all!</div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">No offense meant to anyone per=
sonally, but why does Unicode seem to be biased against scripts devised for=
 conlangs?=C2=A0 To the best of my knowledge, <i>every single time</i>=C2=
=A0such a script&#39;s been proposed for inclusion, it&#39;s ultimately bee=
n rejected (albeit with different levels of vehemence - Klingon and Sarati =
both ended up on the Not the Roadmap hall of shame [Klingon from each of <i=
>two separate</i>=C2=A0proposals], Sitelen Pona was merely rejected, and Te=
ngwar and Corth actually made it into the roadmap to the SMP only to langui=
sh there for years before eventually being removed earlier this spring), ev=
en for those (like Klingon) with an active user base considerably larger th=
an those of some obscure natural-language scripts that <i>do</i>=C2=A0get e=
ncoded.=C2=A0 (In contrast, conlangs that use an existing script do <i>occa=
sionally</i>=C2=A0get their language-specific letters encoded, such as the =
Volap=C3=BCk-specific Latin letters already published in Unicode.)</div><di=
v><br></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div>- Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=
=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000003c49cd0652c00f05--