Perhaps a draft RFC on Script codes?

[Peter_Constable@sil.org]

On 12/07/2002 09:14:34 PM "Sean M. Burke" wrote:

>Why not just this...?
><META NAME="Content-Language" CONTENT="ga-Latg, ru-Cyrl">
>
>I'm not suggesting that a script is a meaningless thing in the absence of
a
>language tag; but I do mean that in most cases of, for example,
>content-negotiation, people would express a script preference only as an
>addendum to a language preference.

I agree. I'd also note that people already take certain language tags to
imply particular scripts. Thus, as they are currently used, "ga" is already
understood to imply "Latn" and "ru" is already understood to imply "Cyrl".
Thus, the above can be simplified to what is already in use:

<META NAME="Content-Language" CONTENT="ga, ru">

and one can leave the script portion of tags out except in marked cases,
e.g.

Accept-Language: ru-Latn, ru;q=0.5

(Note: if someone requests specifically "ru-Latn" and a document is tagged
as "ru", this shouldn't match, so there isn't a problem of the document
having implicit "Cyrl" in this case. Of course, if a user requests "ru",
they will get a match on documents tagged as "ru-Latn".)




- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485