Re: Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
Gabriel Tellez via Unicode <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:01:05 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALpKH7pHTM0VY7cnoDL+iDvcgoELxZmZ2=Xwv98TOdtSzG2d7A@mail.gmail.com> |
--00000000000050555d0653daf179 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well without other evidence of use this doesn=E2=80=99t fall under =E2=80= =9Cgeneral use=E2=80=9D IMO On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 7:41=E2=80=AFPM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 historical > counterparts which, again, might be encoded for archival purposes). > > Once encoded a character cannot be removed and its identity should be > stable. Newly invented writing systems tend to go through significant and > rapid 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). > > For general use writing systems a good argument can be made that lack of > encoding can hinder adoption. Unicode may not have the luxury of a wait a= nd > see attitude without feeding back into the evolution of writing systems. > 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 invented at the time and have been replaced by their modern successors.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 support= s > 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 > understanding of its larger cultural significance before engaging in maki= ng > encoding 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 > 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 universe/med= ia > of origin. > > And no it's not "nobody uses X, except for X's users", it's *when* are X'= s > users actually using it. Like is pIqaD only used when dealing with things > related to Star Trek? 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. > > Like only if we truly have reason to put in Unicode should we > consider potential 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 < > <[email protected]> > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Michael De Roover via Unicode >> < <[email protected]> >> >> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> >> [email protected] >> >> > wrote: >> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a judgment >> about the >> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize scripts that ar= e >> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permission from the >> rights >> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all retain legal >> control >> > 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. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185 >> (1991) >> >> --00000000000050555d0653daf179 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">Well without other evidence of use this doesn=E2=80=99t f= all under =E2=80=9Cgeneral use=E2=80=9D IMO</div><div><br><div class=3D"gma= il_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tu= e, Jun 9, 2026 at 7:41=E2=80=AFPM <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= m">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-= style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">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 u= se. <br><br>And, secondly, those needed for archival and scholarship purpos= es on the absence of general use. That second category could include invent= ed scripts that have some cultural or historical significance even in the a= bsence of wider current use. <br><br>(I=E2=80=99m glossing over notational = and other specialized systems which may be in active current use by special= ized users as well as their historical counterparts which, again, might be = encoded for archival purposes).<br><br>Once encoded a character cannot be r= emoved and its identity should be stable. Newly invented writing systems te= nd to go through significant and rapid phases of adjustment as they are tak= en up by new users.<br><br>The standard would benefit from going slow in en= coding recent innovations as they are often not stable (or may fail to gain= traction).<br><br>For general use writing systems a good argument can be m= ade that lack of encoding can hinder adoption. Unicode may not have the lux= ury of a wait and see attitude without feeding back into the evolution of w= riting systems. There's no place of neutrality.=C2=A0<br><br>Invented w= riting systems not intended for general use would fall into the second cate= gory. Their significance depends on needs by those engaged in scholarship.<= br><br>This makes them similar to historic notational systems. These were n= ewly invented at the time and have been replaced by their modern successors= . Yet encoding these early incantations may make sense if it enables or sup= ports modern scholarship.=C2=A0<br><br>Unlike the case of a script invented= to enable a general purpose writing system for an existing community, ther= e is less of an argument against a wait and see approach. Which means waiti= ng until there's a settled understanding of its larger cultural signifi= cance before engaging in making encoding decisions.=C2=A0<br><br>A./<br><br= >On Tue Jun 09 15:47:08 PDT 2026 Gabriel Tellez via Unicode <u></u> wrote:<= br> =20 =20 <div style=3D"padding-bottom:20px;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:40px"></d= iv><div> =20 =20 =20 <div dir=3D"ltr"> The core issue is if these scripts=C2=A0should be in Unicode in the fir= st place. I have yet to be convinced that these scripts (pIqaD, Tengwar, an= d Cirth) are used in any contexts that aren't related to their universe= /media of origin. =20 <br> =20 <br>And no it's not "nobody uses X, except for X's users&qu= ot;, it's *when* are X's users actually using it. Like is pIqaD onl= y used when dealing with things related=C2=A0to Star Trek? That doesn't= seem like enough usage=C2=A0to me. One again=C2=A0I say, it's not Mono= poly 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 consid= er=C2=A0potential=C2=A0copyright problems that=C2=A0might happen if we do s= uch a=C2=A0thing.=C2=A0 =20 </div> =20 <br> =20 <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> =20 <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"> On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57=E2=80=AFAM David Starner via Unicode <<= a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank"></a> <p dir=3D"ltr"><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_b= lank"></a><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank"></a= ></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_= blank">[email protected]</a></p><p></p>> wrote: =20 <br> =20 </div> =20 <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bord= er-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-colo= r:rgb(204,204,204)"> On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Michael De Roover via Unicode = =20 <br> <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">= </a> <p dir=3D"ltr"><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_b= lank"></a><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank"></a= ></p><p dir=3D"ltr"><a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_= blank">[email protected]</a></p><p></p>> wrote: =20 <br> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a jud= gment about the =20 <br> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize script= s that are =20 <br> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permission= from the rights =20 <br> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all retain= legal control =20 <br> > over their fictional scripts. =20 <br> =20 <br> We can acknowledge the risk without agreeing to the argument. In t= he =20 <br> US, scripts have explicitly been refused copyright protection. Whe= n =20 <br> Cyan tried to register the Myst D'Ni script, the US Copyright = Office =20 <br> responded with a refusal letter explaining that writing systems ar= e =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 typefa= ces, =20 <br> which the US does not. =20 <br> =20 <br> -- =20 <br> The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understan= ding =20 <br> a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit = up =20 <br> straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 718= 5 =20 <br> (1991) =20 <br> =20 <br> =20 </blockquote> =20 </div> =20 =20 </div> <u></u></blockquote></div></div> --00000000000050555d0653daf179--