Re: Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
asmusf--- via Unicode <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2026 16:41:28 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <2b6aacf7-e0e8-4493-83ac-dc2ec7a1e9b2@localhost> |
--6a28a4a8_25e45d32_5ba9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
We broadly encode characters for two types of writing system. Those used =
by every day people for everyday purposes and which include novel scripts=
for general use.
And, secondly, those needed for archival and scholarship purposes on the =
absence of general use. That second category could include invented scrip=
ts that have some cultural or historical significance even in the absence=
of wider current use.
(I=E2=80=99m glossing over notational and other specialized systems which=
may be in active current use by specialized users as well as their histo=
rical counterparts which, again, might be encoded for archival purposes).=
Once encoded a character cannot be removed and its identity should be sta=
ble. Newly invented writing systems tend to go through significant and ra=
pid phases of adjustment as they are taken up by new users.
The standard would benefit from going slow in encoding recent innovations=
as they are often not stable (or may fail to gain traction).
=46or general use writing systems a good argument can be made that lack o=
f encoding can hinder adoption. Unicode may not have the luxury of a wait=
and see attitude without feeding back into the evolution of writing syst=
ems. There's no place of neutrality.
Invented writing systems not intended for general use would fall into the=
second category. Their significance depends on needs by those engaged in=
scholarship.
This makes them similar to historic notational systems. These were newly =
invented at the time and have been replaced by their modern successors. Y=
et encoding these early incantations may make sense if it enables or supp=
orts modern scholarship.
Unlike the case of a script invented to enable a general purpose writing =
system for an existing community, there is less of an argument against a =
wait and see approach. Which means waiting until there's a settled unders=
tanding of its larger cultural significance before engaging in making enc=
oding decisions.
A./
On Tue Jun 09 15:47:08 PDT 2026 Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:
The core issue is if these scripts should be in Unicode in the first plac=
e. I have yet to be convinced that these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, and Cir=
th) are used in any contexts that aren't related to their universe/media =
of origin.
And no it's not =22nobody uses X, except for X's users=22, it's *when* ar=
e X's users actually using it. Like is pIqaD only used when dealing with =
things related to Star Trek=3F That doesn't seem like enough usage to me.=
One again I say, it's not Monopoly in pIqaD, it's *Star Trek themed* Mon=
opoly in pIqaD.
Like only if we truly have reason to put in Unicode should we consider po=
tential copyright problems that might happen if we do such a thing.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57=E2=80=AFAM David Starner via Unicode <
unicode=40corp.unicode.org (mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.org)
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Michael De Roover via Unicode
> <
>
>
>
>
> unicode=40corp.unicode.org (mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.org)
>
> > wrote:
> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a judgment ab=
out the
> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize scripts that a=
re
> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permission from th=
e rights
> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all retain legal c=
ontrol
> > over their fictional scripts.
>
> We can acknowledge the risk without agreeing to the argument. In the
> US, scripts have explicitly been refused copyright protection. When
> Cyan tried to register the Myst D'Ni script, the US Copyright Office
> responded with a refusal letter explaining that writing systems are
> not copyrightable in the US. I am not familiar with any contrary
> decision in any country, though many do permit copyrighting typefaces,
> which the US does not.
>
> --
> The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding
> a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up
> straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- =5FPascal=5F, ISO 7185=
> (1991)
>
--6a28a4a8_25e45d32_5ba9
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
We broadly encode characters for two types of writing system. Those used =
by every day people for everyday purposes and which include novel scripts=
for general use. <br><br>And, secondly, those needed for archival and sc=
holarship purposes on the absence of general use. That second category co=
uld include invented scripts that have some cultural or historical signif=
icance even in the absence of wider current use. <br><br>(I=E2=80=99m glo=
ssing over notational and other specialized systems which may be in activ=
e current use by specialized users as well as their historical counterpar=
ts which, again, might be encoded for archival purposes).<br><br>Once enc=
oded a character cannot be removed and its identity should be stable. New=
ly invented writing systems tend to go through significant and rapid phas=
es of adjustment as they are taken up by new users.<br><br>The standard w=
ould benefit from going slow in encoding recent innovations as they are o=
ften not stable (or may fail to gain traction).<br><br>=46or general use =
writing systems a good argument can be made that lack of encoding can hin=
der adoption. Unicode may not have the luxury of a wait and see attitude =
without feeding back into the evolution of writing systems. There's no pl=
ace of neutrality. <br><br>Invented writing systems not intended for=
general use would fall into the second category. Their significance depe=
nds on needs by those engaged in scholarship.<br><br>This makes them simi=
lar to historic notational systems. These were newly invented at the time=
and have been replaced by their modern successors. Yet encoding these ea=
rly incantations may make sense if it enables or supports modern scholars=
hip. <br><br>Unlike the case of a script invented to enable a genera=
l purpose writing system for an existing community, there is less of an a=
rgument against a wait and see approach. Which means waiting until there'=
s a settled understanding of its larger cultural significance before enga=
ging in making encoding decisions. <br><br>A./<br><br>On Tue Jun 09 =
15:47:08 PDT 2026 Gabriel Tellez via Unicode <unicode=40corp.unicode.org>=
wrote:<br>
<meta name=3D=22viewport=22 content=3D=22width=3Ddevice-width=22>
<meta http-equiv=3D=22Content-Type=22 content=3D=22text/html; charset=
=3DUT=46-8=22>
<div style=3D=22padding-bottom: 20px; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: =
40px;=22></div><div> =20
=20
=20
<div dir=3D=22ltr=22>
The core issue is if these scripts should be in Unicode in the f=
irst place. I have yet to be convinced that these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar=
, and Cirth) are used in any contexts that aren't related to their univer=
se/media of origin. =20
<br> =20
<br>And no it's not =22nobody uses X, except for X's users=22, it's *w=
hen* are X's users actually using it. Like is pIqaD only used when dealin=
g with things related to Star Trek=3F That doesn't seem like enough =
usage to me. One again I say, it's not Monopoly in pIqaD, it's =
*Star Trek themed* Monopoly in pIqaD. =20
<br> =20
<br>Like only if we truly have reason to put in Unicode should we cons=
ider potential copyright problems that might happen if we =
do such a thing. =20
</div> =20
<br> =20
<div class=3D=22gmail=5Fquote=22> =20
<div dir=3D=22ltr=22 class=3D=22gmail=5Fattr=22>
On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57=E2=80=AFAM David Starner via Unicode <=
;<a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.org=22 target=3D=22=5Fblank=22=
></a>
<p dir=3D=22ltr=22><a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.org=22 =
target=3D=22=5Fblank=22></a><a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.or=
g=22></a></p><p dir=3D=22ltr=22><a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicod=
e.org=22>unicode=40corp.unicode.org</a></p><p></p>> wrote: =20
<br> =20
</div> =20
<blockquote class=3D=22gmail=5Fquote=22 style=3D=22margin:0px 0px 0px =
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=22>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Michael De Roover via Unicode=
=20
<br> <<a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.org=22 target=3D=22=
=5Fblank=22></a>
<p dir=3D=22ltr=22><a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.org=22 =
target=3D=22=5Fblank=22></a><a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicode.or=
g=22></a></p><p dir=3D=22ltr=22><a href=3D=22mailto:unicode=40corp.unicod=
e.org=22>unicode=40corp.unicode.org</a></p><p></p>> wrote: =20
<br> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a j=
udgment about the =20
<br> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize scri=
pts that are =20
<br> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permissi=
on from the rights =20
<br> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all reta=
in legal control =20
<br> > over their fictional scripts. =20
<br> =20
<br> We can acknowledge the risk without agreeing to the argument. In=
the =20
<br> US, scripts have explicitly been refused copyright protection. W=
hen =20
<br> Cyan tried to register the Myst D'Ni script, the US Copyright Of=
fice =20
<br> responded with a refusal letter explaining that writing systems =
are =20
<br> not copyrightable in the US. I am not familiar with any contrary=
=20
<br> decision in any country, though many do permit copyrighting type=
faces, =20
<br> which the US does not. =20
<br> =20
<br> -- =20
<br> The standard is written in English . If you have trouble underst=
anding =20
<br> a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Si=
t up =20
<br> straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- =5FPascal=5F, I=
SO 7185 =20
<br> (1991) =20
<br> =20
<br> =20
</blockquote> =20
</div> =20
=20
</div>
</unicode=40corp.unicode.org>
--6a28a4a8_25e45d32_5ba9--