Re: TECH: Unicode 5.1
| From: | Rebecca Bettencourt <beckiergb@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, April 10, 2008, 15:05 |
|---|
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> You could write Conlangs with domino or mahjong tiles or
> draughts/checkers symbols now. :-)
What I don't get is why they're perfectly fine accepting domino and
mahjong tiles for encoding, but won't accept Klingon (or any other
recently devised script) for encoding. AFAIK there is no other text
encoding that includes domino or mahjong tiles, so there is no
compatibility reason. Klingon is more of a script than domino or
mahjong could ever dream to be, so why accept something that's not a
script and reject something that is? It doesn't make all that much
sense to me.
Maybe it has to do with their relative ages? In that case, what a
bunch of ageists...
Perhaps the Unicode Consortium has separate groups for approving
scripts and approving symbols, and the symbols group is more lenient?
If this is the case, maybe we should try to get Klingon approved as a
set of symbols....
--
Hasta la pasta,
Rebecca Bettencourt.
------------------------------------------------------------
I tried the real world once; didn't really care for it.
"I could counter with the fact that a disproportionate number of TG
women I know are computer programmers. ::grin:: In fact, there's a
joke going around that says exposure to computer screens causes
transsexuality." -- Kate Bornstein
Reply