[85964] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Klingon orthography (was: Okrand at qep'a')
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brent Kesler)
Thu Jun 25 10:31:25 2009
In-Reply-To: <DC168148-579F-474B-9555-41F5CC7D48B3@evertype.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:29:26 -0700
From: Brent Kesler <brent.of.all.people@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Michael Everson<everson@evertype.com> wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2009, at 05:07, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
>> Case-pairing is by no means mandatory.
>
> It is normative.
How normative is it? Are we talking MUST as defined by RFC 2119?
SHOULD? Does the Unicode standard even use RFC 2119?
Quick summary:
- MUST: This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
- SHOULD: This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> You can't "delete" case equivalences from the Standard.
Yeah, but the Unicode FAQ adds, "Note that case conversion is
inherently language-sensitive, notably in the case of IPA, which needs
to be left strictly alone even when embedded in another language which
is being case converted."
Admittedly, the FAQ isn't a normative document, but if it accurately
reflects the standard, then it seems to suggest that sometimes you
want to treat certain blocks of text as non-cased. Using Klingon is
one of those times.
bI'reng
