Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050416173457.041f3990@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:53:27 +0200
To: "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: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05A97A4A@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05A97A4A@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

I agree about the RFC. But there are 4000 of them a developer should know. 
Usually first implementations are discussed by people having read many of 
them and keeping sometimes confused memories. This explains most of the 
existing variations in codes.

So, I have nothing against nothing. But what is clear should preferable be 
clearly described to be clearly understood by the proper person. From what 
I gather, we agreed that "default" was not the proper idea, because if 
there was nothing, there was no script. Implicit convey the correct idea. 
However from what I also gather, we want to teach developers not to use the 
script in that case.

As a developer I understand "implicit" as something which is here if it is 
here, but there is no harm in adding anew (by security). I understand 
"redundant" as something which creates a waste of cpu resources, confusion 
or may be even, security leak. So I am more careful.

But I also understand that someone registering a tag may see it otherwise. 
"implicit" is then more neutral, working for both. It is also shorter.
jfc


At 14:34 16/04/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com]
>
> > As a non English speaker I more or less understand the English of
> > "Suppress_Script" because I know its history. I am not sure an
>occasional
> > developper will understand/remember the meaning of it. Unneeded,
>needless,
> > redundant_script would be clearer to me.
>
>Keep in mind, we do expect someone to have at least glanced at the RFC.
>But if "Suppress_Script" really doesn't communicate well enough, then
>what about "Implied_Script" or "Implicit_Script"?
>
>
>A side note: In a paper I wrote three years ago, I had a section
>entitled "Default values and implicit tagging", discussing specifically
>the issue of script subtags. I find it interesting that we started with
>a suggestion of a field called "Default_Script" and have now come around
>to a suggestion that it be called "Implicit_Script". FYI, here's an
>excerpt from the end of that section of that paper:
>
><quote>
>The choice of whether or not to adopt the use of implicit default
>semantics amounts to a trade-off between simpler tags and compatibility
>with existing implementations on the one hand, and identifiers with more
>predictable forms, more predictable semantics, and therefore no need to
>maintain a database of implicit relationships on the other hand.
></quote>
>
>
>
>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