Re: Seeming hostility to conlang scripts?

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:37 PM Michael De Roover via Unicode
<[email protected]> wrote:
> When I first learned about conlangs from this thread, I liked thinking about
> them the way programmers think about esolangs. It appears that they are both
> similar in their respective environments, in that they both tend to be
> academic challenges performed by their creators. In that sense, they both
> differ from conventional human / programming languages, which emerge and evolve
> together with their "speakers" to enable day-to-day communication.

Perhaps if you learned about conlangs from this thread, you shouldn't
be telling us about them. Conlangs vary quite a bit, and those under
discussion were artistic challenges, not academic challenges. Your
boxing of programming languages seems pretty narrow as well, ignoring
a world of special purpose programming language and the various ways
languages do or do not evolve.

> When thinking about Unicode as an append-only character space, that would make
> stability of those code points and their meaning paramount, as they cannot be
> modified after the fact. Conlangs having a tendency to be as artificially
> constructed as they are, challenge that notion.

Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic and Chinese, the four great world scripts, all
have encoded characters that saw transient use in the 20th century.
Between around 1800 and today, all the world's languages have been put
to writing, and often in several different scripts and with several
different alphabets in one script. I see no place where these scripts
under question are more flexible than what Unicode already has to deal
with.

-- 
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)