Suppress-Script for Korean?
dewell at roadrunner.com
Fri Jul 27 05:13:28 CEST 2007
CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> (Myself I remember the case for belarussian where the existing
> standard did not need an additional variant subtag since in some since
> it was the default value; whereas the classical variety did need such
> a subtag--or else would be confused with the other. Default values
> may be different than suppress-script of course, but . . . )
This might seem like it has something to do with the Korean
Suppress-Script question, but it doesn't really.
The two main writing systems used for Belarusian are Latin and Cyrillic;
the latter is further subdivided into Taraskievica and
whatever-I'm-supposed-to-call-the-other-orthography. There is no
question that Cyrillic is predominant over Latin for writing Belarusian,
to the point where setting 'Cyrl' as the Suppress-Script is without
controversy. Variants like 'tarask' have no bearing on Suppress-Script.
The predominant writing system for Korean is Hangul combined with some
small amount (possibly zero) of Hanja. I don't think there's any debate
about that; the question is whether this can be represented as 'Kore'
("Hangul + Han") or whether it can only be 'Hang'. 'Kore' makes sense
as a Suppress-Script for Korean if and only if the former is true.
"Default values" for a language or variant, such that the "default
value" would not require qualification by a variant while other values
would, are not defined anywhere within RFC 4646.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages