Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050416111756.04ab9e70@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:31:29 +0200
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>,
	"Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
In-Reply-To: <03df01c54245$85acd400$087d3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05A97A12@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<03df01c54245$85acd400$087d3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

As a non English speaker I more or less understand the English of=20
"Suppress_Script" because I know its history. I am not sure an occasional=
=20
developper will understand/remember the meaning of it. Unneeded, needless=
,=20
redundant_script would be clearer to me.
jfc



At 07:25 16/04/2005, Mark Davis wrote:understand
>I'm sorry, I really misworded what I wanted to say, so it must have been
>very confusing.. In the opening, I meant to say that I don't see the rea=
son
>for the *Require_Script*.
>If you look below, you see that what I propose is:
>
>...this could be simplified down to one
>field, Suppress_Script, and two rules.
>
>1. Script subtags listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD NOT be us=
ed
>to form language tags unless they add specific information to the langua=
ge
>tag required by an application.
>
>2. Script subtags not listed in the 'Suppress_Script' field SHOULD alway=
s be
>used to form language tags when the script used by the content being
>identified matches the script unless there is a specific reason to omit =
the
>script subtag in the application.
>
>
>So
>A. If the Suppress_Script is Latn, then en-Latn becomes en, while en-Cyr=
l
>stays as is
>B. If there is no Suppress_Script (say for zh), then zh-Hant, zh-Hans,
>zh-Cyrl, (and everything else) stay as is.
>
>
>
>=E2=80=8EMark
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
>To: <ltru@ietf.org>
>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 19:03
>Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
>
>
> > From: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org=
]
>On
> > Behalf Of Mark Davis
>
>
> > This is a real improvement. But in terms of results, it appears that
>there
> > is no real difference in guidance in having the Suppress_Script field=
,
>and
> > having nothing. So it is unclear why the 'Suppress_Script' is needed.
>
>This is the most useful field: it is the one that addresses the concern
>voiced by Ira and others: that we don't get users or application
>developers going off and thinking that now they should use (say)
>en-Latn-GB or that the inclusion of Latn in this case has no particular
>concerns associated with it.
>
>
>
>Peter Constable
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru