Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Jun 2026 20:31:17 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------pDhsPbg8gBE1UYlc8DRIYNDC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 6/9/26 6:42 PM, 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/media 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. I still don't get why we feel it's necessary to "grade" the level (or breadth) of literature in a writing system. It's true that a system which is used for nothing but education materials (in the same system) or only has material published by one author or a single publishing source is probably too idiosyncratic to be considered for encoding, but saying, "OK, you can write about love, revenge, pain, suffering, joy, sadness.... but so long as it's only in the Star Trek universe, that doesn't count as a diverse literature." Where does Unicode get off telling people that some topics "don't count"? Linear B was only ever used in the "Mycenean Greek world-setting", and our evidence of it deals with almost nothing except boring administrative records. No poetry, no songs, no plays, no books. Does that mean it's too limited? Asmus notes the similarity of fiction-based scripts to historic scripts. (not "invented" scripts; ALL scripts are invented. They don't grow on trees, you know. And some encoded scripts are quite recent inventions.) It's not about whether or not they're used for things other than their historic milieu. It's about whether or not they are *used* by people, either as scholarly discussion, creative innovation, or historical recording. As to Asmus' point about the need to wait and see and consider the impact, it's a fair enough point, but do note that proposals for Klingon stretch back *thirty* years. And for good or ill, the actual writing system has changed very little in all that time. I think the wait-and-see period is over. (BTW, I've seen Klingon stories set in various non-Star-Trek universes. But maybe you'll say that some of them are "too close" to Star Trek. Do they have to be non alien/futuristic in order to count? The opera _'u'_ is set in the Star Trek universe, but in Klingon pre-history, so it isn't "futuristic" at all. The audio story _qul toQ wo'_ is not set in the Star Trek universe, and there are no Klingons, but it is a futuristic setting with various kinds of aliens and space-ships and wormholes. Is that too close to Star Trek? How do we make the call for what is and what is not "valid" use? (these are both just stories, not examples specifically of pIqaD use.)) > 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. According to what I've been told, the potential copyright problems are indeed what is stopping Unicode from encoding Klingon, even though the record says that isn't the reason. Usage has already been demonstrated. And indeed, it's reasonable enough to be cautious of those problems. ~mark > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57 AM David Starner via Unicode > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05 AM Michael De Roover via Unicode > <[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 are > > 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) > --------------pDhsPbg8gBE1UYlc8DRIYNDC Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> </head> <body> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/9/26 6:42 PM, Gabriel Tellez via Unicode wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7o1hpzhLFqs=+TLRyg8v-bR01-q5OpT3aKdyoJbfLT9qQ@mail.gmail.com"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> <div dir="ltr">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/media of origin.<br> <br> 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.<br> </div> </blockquote> <p>I still don't get why we feel it's necessary to "grade" the level (or breadth) of literature in a writing system. It's true that a system which is used for nothing but education materials (in the same system) or only has material published by one author or a single publishing source is probably too idiosyncratic to be considered for encoding, but saying, "OK, you can write about love, revenge, pain, suffering, joy, sadness.... but so long as it's only in the Star Trek universe, that doesn't count as a diverse literature." Where does Unicode get off telling people that some topics "don't count"? Linear B was only ever used in the "Mycenean Greek world-setting", and our evidence of it deals with almost nothing except boring administrative records. No poetry, no songs, no plays, no books. Does that mean it's too limited?</p> <p>Asmus notes the similarity of fiction-based scripts to historic scripts. (not "invented" scripts; ALL scripts are invented. They don't grow on trees, you know. And some encoded scripts are quite recent inventions.) It's not about whether or not they're used for things other than their historic milieu. It's about whether or not they are *used* by people, either as scholarly discussion, creative innovation, or historical recording. As to Asmus' point about the need to wait and see and consider the impact, it's a fair enough point, but do note that proposals for Klingon stretch back *thirty* years. And for good or ill, the actual writing system has changed very little in all that time. I think the wait-and-see period is over.</p> <p>(BTW, I've seen Klingon stories set in various non-Star-Trek universes. But maybe you'll say that some of them are "too close" to Star Trek. Do they have to be non alien/futuristic in order to count? The opera _'u'_ is set in the Star Trek universe, but in Klingon pre-history, so it isn't "futuristic" at all. The audio story _qul toQ wo'_ is not set in the Star Trek universe, and there are no Klingons, but it is a futuristic setting with various kinds of aliens and space-ships and wormholes. Is that too close to Star Trek? How do we make the call for what is and what is not "valid" use? (these are both just stories, not examples specifically of pIqaD use.))</p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7o1hpzhLFqs=+TLRyg8v-bR01-q5OpT3aKdyoJbfLT9qQ@mail.gmail.com"> <div dir="ltr">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. </div> </blockquote> <p>According to what I've been told, the potential copyright problems are indeed what is stopping Unicode from encoding Klingon, even though the record says that isn't the reason. Usage has already been demonstrated. And indeed, it's reasonable enough to be cautious of those problems.</p> <p>~mark</p> <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CALpKH7o1hpzhLFqs=+TLRyg8v-bR01-q5OpT3aKdyoJbfLT9qQ@mail.gmail.com"><br> <div class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:57 AM David Starner via Unicode <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:05 AM Michael De Roover via Unicode<br> <<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> > The core issue, though, is institutional and legal, not a judgment about the<br> > value of these communities. Unicode cannot standardize scripts that are<br> > copyrighted intellectual property without explicit permission from the rights<br> > holders. The Tolkien Estate, Paramount, and miHoYo all retain legal control<br> > over their fictional scripts.<br> <br> We can acknowledge the risk without agreeing to the argument. In the<br> US, scripts have explicitly been refused copyright protection. When<br> Cyan tried to register the Myst D'Ni script, the US Copyright Office<br> responded with a refusal letter explaining that writing systems are<br> not copyrightable in the US. I am not familiar with any contrary<br> decision in any country, though many do permit copyrighting typefaces,<br> which the US does not.<br> <br> -- <br> The standard is written in English . If you have trouble understanding<br> a particular section, read it again and again and again . . . Sit up<br> straight. Eat your vegetables. Do not mumble. -- _Pascal_, ISO 7185<br> (1991)<br> <br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html> --------------pDhsPbg8gBE1UYlc8DRIYNDC--