Encoding scripts in tags: evil or just unpleasant?

[Mark Davis]

> As I see it you are trying to redefine the meaning of the serbian
> language tag, from meaning "serbian (as costumarly written in the
cyrillic
> script)", to "serbian (as written in any script)". Changing the
meaning
> of registered entities is a no-no in normal registration
administration.

Huh? Where in the heck do you get that "sr" requires *any* written
form, let alone that it must be Cyrillic? Is there some mysterious
hidden section of ISO 639 that I don't know about?

And if that were true, of course, than doing a filter on Serbian
documents would reject any Serbian written in Latin. I know my
collegue Vladimir would object strongly to that.

This is not a change of registered entities: your interpretation is
the unsubstantiated one.

Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
►  “Eppur si muove” ◄

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <keld at dkuug.dk>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>; <Peter_Constable at sil.org>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:38
Subject: Re: Encoding scripts in tags: evil or just unpleasant?


> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:21:23AM -0700, Mark Davis wrote:
> > It appears that the main issue is the 'default'. I really find it
very
> > hard to understand Michael's objections.
> >
> > 1. RFD 3066 provides for differences in written form, and script
is a
> > huge difference; far, far more different than between British and
> > American spelling, or between German pre 1996 and post.
> >
> > 2. Michael keeps talking about duplicate encodings, but as many
people
> > have pointed out, they are not duplicates. We have very much an
> > analogous situation now:
> >
> > en means any English
> > en-US means English as used in the US
> > en-CA means English as used in Canada
> > etc.
>
> As I see it you are trying to redefine the meaning of the serbian
> language tag, from meaning "serbian (as costumarly written in the
cyrillic
> script)", to "serbian (as written in any script)". Changing the
meaning
> of registered entities is a no-no in normal registration
administration.
>
> My proposed way out of this is to have associated scripts with a few
> language identifiers, such as cyrl with serbian.
>
> Best regards
> Keld
>