[85941] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Klingon orthography
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI')
Wed Jun 24 20:39:40 2009
In-Reply-To: <5CDCF305-303D-4936-94AA-F106DEAC51D5@evertype.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI'" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:38:23 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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'
