Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:38 -0700 2001-07-04, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
>
> >Fictional scripts have been, are, and will likely continue to be a
constant
> >source of contention for both Unicode and 10646 for years to come.
>
> Klingon is such a script, but didn't meet certain criteria and was
> rejected.
[...]
> So what is the "source of contention"?
A lot of the arguments against Klingon weren't specificially against
Klingon; they were more against any fictional scripts in Unicode. The
editorial response to comments from national groups, in the public archive
of ISO 10646 stuff that you linked to at the start of this message, included
a complaint about Deseret from the German Standards body, in that it was
inappropriate for being a fictional script. The response to that was
bascially "Not really", IIRC. That does not bode well for lack of contention
for later scripts.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
