Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?

--000000000000d23d3f0652c0125d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Unicode's "hostility" to conlang scripts has actually been *decreasing*
over the years. Such proposals used to be rejected outright for not being
notable or not having a large enough user community. That is not the case
anymore. Klingon, Sitelen Pona, Tengwar, and Cirth have all actually been
recognized as having a large enough user community; the objections being
raised now are actually much more complicated issues to navigate: copyright
status and stability.

Unicode does not want to include Klingon without a letter from Paramount's
legal department stating that they will not sue anyone who implements it,
but Paramount simply does not care enough to spend legal resources on that.
Tengwar and Cirth are in the hands of the Tolkien estate, which is
extremely controlling about the use of their intellectual property and is
not going to give permission to encode them. And while it's legally
questionable whether a writing system can actually be copyrighted, Unicode
does not have the resources to find out.

As for Sitelen Pona, it is still relatively new and unstable: people are
still experimenting with new features, new characters, and new glyph
variants, and the people who came together to write the most recent
preliminary proposal are still stuck in constant arguments over which
characters to propose. Unicode actually ran into concerns about stability a
few years ago when they needed to update the representative glyphs for
Adlam because it had changed slightly since it was encoded. Unicode doesn't
want to have to update a script every year.

Most recently, the UTC in its most recent meeting actually had a discussion
on how to support newly-created scripts. They suggested that the Script
Encoding Working Group and the Script Encoding Initiative work together to
develop "support for neoscripts" using "software packages" that can
override character properties for Private Use Area characters. Whether this
will actually happen I have doubts, and it's likely more for the sake of
minority languages than conlangs, but it's still a positive sign.

-- Rebecca Bettencourt


On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 2:09=E2=80=AFPM Vikki McDonough via Unicode <
[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>

--000000000000d23d3f0652c0125d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Unicode&#39;s &quot;hostility&quot; to conlang script=
s has actually been *decreasing* over the years. Such proposals used to be =
rejected outright for not being notable or not having a large enough user c=
ommunity. That is not the case anymore. Klingon, Sitelen Pona, Tengwar, and=
 Cirth have all actually been recognized as having a large enough user comm=
unity; the objections being raised now are actually much more complicated i=
ssues to navigate: copyright status and stability.</div><div><br></div><div=
>Unicode does not want to include Klingon without a letter from Paramount&#=
39;s legal department stating that they will not sue anyone who implements =
it, but Paramount simply does not care enough to spend legal resources on t=
hat. Tengwar and Cirth are in the hands of the Tolkien estate, which is ext=
remely controlling=C2=A0about the use of their intellectual property and is=
 not going to give permission to encode them. And while it&#39;s legally qu=
estionable whether a=C2=A0writing system can actually be copyrighted, Unico=
de does not have the resources to find out.</div><div><br></div><div>As for=
 Sitelen Pona, it is still relatively new and unstable: people are still ex=
perimenting with new features, new characters, and new glyph variants, and =
the people who came together to write the most recent preliminary proposal =
are still=C2=A0stuck in constant arguments over which characters to propose=
. Unicode actually ran into concerns about stability a few years ago when t=
hey needed to update the representative glyphs for Adlam because it had cha=
nged slightly since it was encoded. Unicode doesn&#39;t want to have to upd=
ate a script every year.</div><div><br></div><div>Most recently, the UTC in=
 its most recent meeting actually had a discussion on how to support newly-=
created scripts. They suggested that the Script Encoding Working Group and =
the Script Encoding Initiative work together to develop &quot;support for n=
eoscripts&quot; using &quot;software packages&quot; that can override chara=
cter properties for Private Use Area characters. Whether this will actually=
 happen I have doubts, and it&#39;s likely more for the sake of minority la=
nguages than conlangs, but it&#39;s still a positive sign.</div><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><br=
>-- Rebecca Bettencourt</div></div><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote =
gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, May 26=
, 2026 at 2:09=E2=80=AFPM Vikki McDonough via Unicode &lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border=
-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>H=
ai all!</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">No offense meant=
 to anyone personally, but why does Unicode seem to be biased against scrip=
ts 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 ul=
timately been rejected (albeit with different levels of vehemence - Klingon=
 and Sarati both ended up on the Not the Roadmap hall of shame [Klingon fro=
m each of <i>two separate</i>=C2=A0proposals], Sitelen Pona was merely reje=
cted, and Tengwar and Corth actually made it into the roadmap to the SMP on=
ly to languish there for years before eventually being removed earlier this=
 spring), even for those (like Klingon) with an active user base considerab=
ly larger than those of some obscure natural-language scripts that <i>do</i=
>=C2=A0get encoded.=C2=A0 (In contrast, conlangs that use an existing scrip=
t do <i>occasionally</i>=C2=A0get their language-specific letters encoded, =
such as the Volap=C3=BCk-specific Latin letters already published in Unicod=
e.)</div><div><br></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div>- Vikki McDono=
ugh =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000d23d3f0652c0125d--