tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 24 17:39:25 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Klingon orthography

ghunchu'wI' (

On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

> Canonical equivalence can and will crop
> up as a an impediment of one kind or another.

You keep mentioning "canonical equivalence" without explaining why  
it's an issue.  It's all about "combining forms" and "precomposed  
forms" and accents and diacritical marks, right?  So far as I know,  
nothing about Klingon is impacted by it.

> Others have mentioned it
> already. It can only get worse as Unicode implementations progress.
> It's unnecessary and avoidable.

I'm confused.  I thought you were firmly in the pro-Unicode camp.   
How do you figure things will worsen as Unicode adoption grows?  How  
can you propose using all those fancy non-ASCII characters unless you  
plan for Unicode to be ubiquitous?  Just what is it about Unicode  
that makes it *harder* to keep things straight?  It seems  
increasingly likely that there's something you consider obvious but  
which isn't generally known to non-experts such as me.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level