The reach of Apple? Or of the Klingon Empire? Neither was behind this one...

by Michael S. Kaplan, published on 2011/07/29 07:01 -04:00, original URI: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2011/07/29/10190579.aspx


So over in the Suggestion Box, Steve commented:

For fun purposes: The "Apple logo" PUA Codepoint 0xF8FF mentioned in http://unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/APPLE/SYMBOL.TXT maps to a Klingon empire "Glyph" in the Code2000 font ;-))

Well, thus wasn't really a secret Easter Egg for Apple....

Is it perhaps more of a way of helping Michael Everson's ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1643 (Proposal to encode Klingon in Plane 1 of ISO/IEC 10646-2) come alive despite the eventual rejection of the script in Unicode?

You can see all of the characters ufrom the proposal if you look at the font in Character Map:

You can see lots of other stuff too, if you'll see. Seem familiar, any of it?

The encoding here is not a Klingon Easter Egg of some sort; it and the other characters here are all from the Conscript unicode Registry....

I guess there are some places even Apple and the Klingon Empire can't reach.

But let's not take any chances.

Ensign, put blogs.msdn.com on Red Alert, raise shields, and call Shawn Steele to the bridge!


Doug Ewell on 29 Jul 2011 7:10 AM:

The ConScript Unicode Registry is located at www.evertype.com/.../csur .

ErikF on 1 Aug 2011 8:10 AM:

Wasn't this the point of the PUA? I doubt that any of the ConScript stuff will ever make it into Unicode (although Deseret was adopted eventually.) The only issue that I can see is that according to blogs.msdn.com/.../2782610.aspx my epic Klingon novel will be treated as being in an Asian language in Word!

(Actually, there is another issue that you raised in blogs.msdn.com/.../473738.aspx , that being the inability of the rendering engine to determine the classes of the characters, etc. Can font designers work around that yet? That's the biggest hindrance that I can see in using PUA characters, because the characters won't look as "nice" as characters in defined blocks.)

Michael S. Kaplan on 1 Aug 2011 2:39 PM:

It is kind of the point, though some might think it more of a transitional area for scripts to be encoded....

Michael S. Kaplan on 1 Aug 2011 8:19 PM:

For the other issue, a combination of Unicode conformance and lack of serious interest keeps the companies in line, out of the ConScriot business.

Corylic on 23 Jul 2012 8:30 PM:

Look like apples but are neither bitten nor broken: ѽ Ѽ


go to newer or older post, or back to index or month or day