Suppress-Script for Korean?
randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Tue Jul 24 19:21:50 CEST 2007
> From: "Addison Phillips" <addison at yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at roadrunner.com>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Suppress-Script for Korean?
> > Are there any objections to adding 'Kore' as a Suppress-Script for the
> > Korean language?
> Yes. RFC 4646 only permits a single script to be suppressed. 'Kore' and
> 'Hang' both seem appropriate for suppression. Since it doesn't seem to
> be a big problem and plenty of languages don't suppress their scripts, I
> don't think we should add it at this time.
I think "Kore" is the appropriate choice for suppression. In the abstract,
this might seem odd because the "Hang" is a proper subset of "Kore."
However, if we think about the practical contexts of when something would
be delibrately written only using "Hang," (rather than merely happening to
have only "Hang" characters) I think the conclusion is that "Hang"
is indeed the "marked" case.
Since there already is a substantial body of tagged Korean text with no
script subtag, and Korean texts of any substantial length are overwhelmingly
"Kore", this seems to be exactly what Suppress-Script was intended to cover.
More information about the Ietf-languages