Suppress-Script for Korean?
jon at hackcraft.net
Wed Jul 25 16:15:58 CEST 2007
CE Whitehead wrote:
> Karen, I'm not the expert; that's for sure; but it's my guess that
> Suppress-script is used for the most widely used contemporary form of
> the language/script -- in cases where the languages is still spoken today.
> As for suppress-script for ancient languages, how it works/would work, I
> will not venture a guess.
I think really it has to be a matter of something being so common as to
be a "no brainer".
French is written in the Latin script. They go together enough to be
such a "no brainer".
A script being used "in the past for informal use" seems enough to argue
against a suppress-script to my mind unless "in the past" is more than a
If something seems artificial for "a document longer than a few words"
but not for a short passage I think that should also be enough to
consider that script to be in common use for the language in question.
Quite a few important use-cases are rather short phrases after all.
Now. Whether that actually applies or not to Korean, I haven't a clue,
but if it does apply to the extent that you could reasonably expect a
literate native-speaker to recognise more than one script then I think
it's not a candidate for suppress-script.
More information about the Ietf-languages