Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn

[Michael Everson]

At 10:02 -0800 2006-03-09, Mark Davis wrote:
>That is very much the wrong way to phrase it. RFC3066bis *allows* 
>the insertion of script subtags; it does not require it. And this is 
>not a backwards incompatibility with 3066 -- there are already such 
>tags in 3066. However, the script, *like the country*, should only 
>be included where it makes a difference, and the Suppress-Script was 
>added to guide users of the registry in knowing when this should be 
>done.

And who has come to the registry with this concern? English can't be 
issued a "Suppress-script". I have many texts in English in other 
scripts: In Runic, in Tengwar. I have a book all about writing 
English in Cyrillic.

All of the scripts of the world are routinely transliterated into 
Latin, by the United Nations and other authorities. Therefore *no* 
language that primarily uses a non-Latin script is eligible for 
"Suppress-script". And in many countries of the world, names in the 
Latin script are routinely transcribed into non-Latin scripts. There 
are often standards for doing this.

I think this is one which got away from you guys. Until I'm given 
some grounds for real evaluation, I can't think of ANY reason to 
apply a "Suppress-Script" specification.

>(I, like Addison, was of the view that the negative would have been 
>more practical; specifying the few cases where the script is needed 
>is rather more useful than listing all the cases where it is not. 
>But that's in the past.)

It would be prudent NOT to allow any "Suppress-script" tags (or 
whatever you call this field) to be registered now, as it seems 
badly-thought out and will just cause grandfathering clauses in 
future.

>It isn't really a critical matter at all. Whether or not there is a 
>suppress-script tag on frr, if I know enough about frr to be using 
>the tag, I'm not going to be adding a Latn subtag on it.

Grand so.

>However, it is the responsibility of the language tag reviewer to -- 
>in a timely fashion -- review all of the requests made in accordance 
>with the rules set down in 3066bis, and follow those rules in 
>determining what changes to make to the registry. This is a 
>straightforward request with an obvious answer, so I see no grounds 
>for the reviewer to reject it.

I see lots of grounds for rejecting it, including its being proposed 
to "testdrive" the system. I think it's done a good job. It gives 
reasons to reject "Suppress-script" in general.

>Let's not move to inflamatory language quite so quickly. I don't 
>think that Michael was yet clear enough on the responsibilities of 
>the reviewer, not that he meant to impede them.

Rejecting things for good reason is part of the reviewer's 
responsibility. It's not a rubber-stamping operation simply because a 
proposal is well-formed according to the rules. You could get a piece 
of software to do that.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com