Suppress-Script batch 1
dewell at adelphia.net
Wed Sep 27 20:06:50 CEST 2006
(Cross-posted to ietf-languages, since it really belongs there.)
Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:
> Here's my thought:
> -1 to all of them
> I still believe that Suppress-Script was the wrong solution to the
> script subtag problem. Here we are seeing *exactly* the kinds of
> problems with it that I predicted, which is that it is very difficult
> indeed to make a complete, comprehensive, and verifiably correct list.
We can't put that particular toothpaste back into that particular tube.
By creating an initial set of 126 Suppress-Script entries, I'm afraid
the stage is set to investigate the remaining RFC 3066-era languages,
and either add Suppress-Scripts or not.
> Furthermore, the possibility of abuse is clearly present. I see 'tt'
> on the list below, despite someone's vehement belief that Tatar
> speakers wish to write using the Latin script and are being
> suppressed. Suppress-Script would aid that, if that case turns out to
> be true.
This is a good observation, and it's why John urged everyone to review
his list. For the kind of bulk update that John and others have in
mind, we (ietf-languages) would probably have to raise the bar for
acceptance even higher, something like "Language A written in Script B
would be just plain bizarre."
Last March I began a small research project to determine whether Korean
should have a Suppress-Script of Hangul. I read books, scanned
Korean-language newspapers published in Seoul and in Los Angeles,
checked numerous Web sites, talked to native Korean speakers in person
and by e-mail. The result was that Hangul is, in fact, used an
overwhelming proportion of the time to write modern Korean -- a
colleague at work actually used the word "overwhelming" -- but there is
still a certain, tiny, regular pattern of usage of Han (hanja) in
scholarly works and newspapers. "Regular" was the key here. So I
concluded that a Suppress-Script for Korean actually would NOT be a good
idea, which is not what I expected to find.
One important fact to keep in mind is that Suppress-Script values may be
not only added, but also removed (Section 3.4, item 7). If we make a
mistake, we can go back and fix it.
> Since we didn't do that [Accept-Script], I think we should only create
> Suppress-Script fields when there is clear and compelling reason to do
> so... and I think that a clear and compelling reason for me would be
> someone requesting it on purpose.
Like all other requests, though, it needs to be confirmed that such a
request relates to actual usage, and is not a "test" of the system or an
attempt to "prove" something about the system or its participants or
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages