Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
Vikki McDonough via Unicode <[email protected]> Tue, 26 May 2026 18:46:33 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPwTRx-fvXvqTzJj6HTDseC-_WLL6xc1zXhf2vjsJGnDr-Uppw@mail.gmail.com> |
--00000000000088b0a30652c11bbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (Sidenote, how come only part of this thread's showing up on the public mailing-list archive?) - Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F On Tue, May 26, 2026, 6:41=E2=80=AFPM Vikki McDonough <[email protected]= m> wrote: > > > > - Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Vikki McDonough <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, May 26, 2026, 6:27=E2=80=AFPM > Subject: Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts? > To: Mark E. Shoulson <[email protected]> > > > Worrying about being seen as nerds by adding a particular script *to the > massive text-encoding system for unifying the computer representation of > most of the writing systems on Earth **that you've already built* seems > to me like a case of locking the barn door after the horse's bolted, fled > the county, had a nice bunch of foals, and been turned into glue. > > > - Vikki McDonough =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F > > On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:57=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/26/26 6:32 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote: >> > 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. >> >> It should be noted, though, that the only *official* reason for >> rejection of Klingon is still "because we don't want to be associated >> with Those Kinds of People." The proposal to reject Klingon >> (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html), adopted by >> Unicode (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm) mentions nothing >> about IP problems or lack of usage. This remains the reason it is on >> the "Not to be Encoded" list, even though (at the suggestion of Ken >> Whistler https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html) >> there was a proposal not to approve it, but just to remove it from the >> "No" list (https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf) >> Removing it from the "Not Encoded" list would have been a way to signal >> a lessening of hostility without actually doing anything (and thus >> without running risks of IP problems.) >> >> Has the hostility been decreasing over the years? Perhaps, even >> probably. There has been unofficial recognition that "lack of usage" is >> no longer a valid argument against Klingon (after a new proposal, >> https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf showed a great >> deal of usage.) But there still seems to be something in the "dignity >> argument" (Klingon is beneath the dignity of Unicode, because only nerds >> speak it), brought down explicitly in the Proposal to Reject linked >> above and on this mailing list >> https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589.html >> >> AFAIK, Sitelen Pona is, indeed, insufficiently fleshed out (but I may >> not be well-enough informed), and the Tolkien estate has come out >> explicitly against the encoding of Cirth and Tengwar (which I think >> deserve encoding more than Klingon does, but whose IP situation is >> rather more clear against it.) >> >> Several new writing systems which have been encoded are no older than >> some conlang scripts, like Adlam (1989), Osage (2006), Signwriting >> (1974) (and honestly, the IP status of some of them is not clear either, >> though it's definitely an issue in things like Blissymbolics and I think >> maybe Mandombe), so it clearly isn't a matter of needing to be an *old* >> established system... just an established one, and these did demonstrate >> usage and a community. >> >> So, yeah, the hostility may be on the decline. It's still the official >> stance, though. >> >> ~mark >> >> --00000000000088b0a30652c11bbe Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><div>(Sidenote, how come only part of t= his thread's showing up on the public mailing-list archive?)</div><div>= <br></div><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><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><br><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"lt= r" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, May 26, 2026, 6:41=E2=80=AFPM Vikki McDonou= gh <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"no= referrer">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class= =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd= ing-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div data-sma= rtmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div>- Vikki McDonoug= h =F0=9F=8F=B3=EF=B8=8F=E2=80=8D=E2=9A=A7=EF=B8=8F</div></div></div><br><di= v class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">---------- Fo= rwarded message ---------<br>From: <strong class=3D"gmail_sendername" dir= =3D"auto">Vikki McDonough</strong> <span dir=3D"auto"><<a href=3D"mailto= :[email protected]" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">sha= [email protected]</a>></span><br>Date: Tue, May 26, 2026, 6:27=E2=80=AF= PM<br>Subject: Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?<br>To: Mark E. Sho= ulson <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" tar= get=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>><br></div><br><br><div dir=3D"auto"><div= >Worrying about being seen as nerds by adding a particular script <i>to the= massive text-encoding system for unifying the computer representation of m= ost of the writing systems on Earth </i><b style=3D"font-style:italic">that= you've already built</b>=C2=A0seems to me like a case of locking the b= arn door after the horse's bolted, fled the county, had a nice bunch of= foals, and been turned into glue.</div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail= =3D"gmail_signature"><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><br><div cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, May 26, 20= 26, 5:57=E2=80=AFPM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <<a href=3D"mailto:unic= [email protected]" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_b= lank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D= "gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2= 04,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 5/26/26 6:32 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via U= nicode wrote:<br> > Unicode's "hostility" to conlang scripts has actually be= en <br> > *decreasing* over the years. Such proposals used to be rejected <br> > outright for not being notable or not having a large enough user <br> > community. That is not the case anymore. Klingon, Sitelen Pona, <br> > Tengwar, and Cirth have all actually been recognized as having a large= <br> > enough user community; the objections being raised now are actually <b= r> > much more complicated issues to navigate: copyright status and stabili= ty.<br> ><br> > Unicode does not want to include Klingon without a letter from <br> > Paramount's legal department stating that they will not sue anyone= who <br> > implements it, but Paramount simply does not care enough to spend <br> > legal resources on that. Tengwar and Cirth are in the hands of the <br= > > Tolkien estate, which is extremely controlling=C2=A0about the use of t= heir <br> > intellectual property and is not going to give permission to encode <b= r> > them. And while it's legally questionable whether a=C2=A0writing s= ystem can <br> > actually be copyrighted, Unicode does not have the resources to find o= ut.<br> <br> It should be noted, though, that the only *official* reason for <br> rejection of Klingon is still "because we don't want to be associa= ted <br> with Those Kinds of People."=C2=A0 The proposal to reject Klingon <br> (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html" rel= =3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blan= k">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01212-RejectKlingon.html</a>), adopted = by <br> Unicode (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm" rel=3D"nore= ferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https= ://www.unicode.org/L2/L2001/01183.htm</a>) mentions nothing <br> about IP problems or lack of usage.=C2=A0 This remains the reason it is on = <br> the "Not to be Encoded" list, even though (at the suggestion of K= en <br> Whistler <a href=3D"https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091= .html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" targe= t=3D"_blank">https://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2016-m11/0091.html</= a>) <br> there was a proposal not to approve it, but just to remove it from the <br> "No" list (<a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klin= gon-req.pdf" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"= target=3D"_blank">https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf</= a>)=C2=A0 <br> Removing it from the "Not Encoded" list would have been a way to = signal <br> a lessening of hostility without actually doing anything (and thus <br> without running risks of IP problems.)<br> <br> Has the hostility been decreasing over the years?=C2=A0 Perhaps, even <br> probably.=C2=A0 There has been unofficial recognition that "lack of us= age" is <br> no longer a valid argument against Klingon (after a new proposal, <br> <a href=3D"https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf" rel=3D= "noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">= https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16329-piqad-returns.pdf</a> showed a great= <br> deal of usage.)=C2=A0 But there still seems to be something in the "di= gnity <br> argument" (Klingon is beneath the dignity of Unicode, because only ner= ds <br> speak it), brought down explicitly in the Proposal to Reject linked <br> above and on this mailing list <br> <a href=3D"https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/009589= .html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" targe= t=3D"_blank">https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2021-September/0095= 89.html</a><br> <br> AFAIK, Sitelen Pona is, indeed, insufficiently fleshed out (but I may <br> not be well-enough informed), and the Tolkien estate has come out <br> explicitly against the encoding of Cirth and Tengwar (which I think <br> deserve encoding more than Klingon does, but whose IP situation is <br> rather more clear against it.)<br> <br> Several new writing systems which have been encoded are no older than <br> some conlang scripts, like Adlam (1989), Osage (2006), Signwriting <br> (1974) (and honestly, the IP status of some of them is not clear either, <b= r> though it's definitely an issue in things like Blissymbolics and I thin= k <br> maybe Mandombe), so it clearly isn't a matter of needing to be an *old*= <br> established system... just an established one, and these did demonstrate <b= r> usage and a community.<br> <br> So, yeah, the hostility may be on the decline.=C2=A0 It's still the off= icial <br> stance, though.<br> <br> ~mark<br> <br> </blockquote></div> </div> </blockquote></div> --00000000000088b0a30652c11bbe--