Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

[John Cowan]

CE Whitehead scripsit:

> In any case, why is suppress-script not registered for any other
> collection codes?  (There seem to be individual language subtags
> registered for some of the language included in these collections
> & these do have the suppress-script field--but what is the point
> of having these subtags--are they to be used with the individual
> language subtags?  or alone?  or both?  if alone, is there any reason
> not to have a suppress-script when applicable other than expediency?
> Is there any recommendation not to have it?)

We have collection subtags because ISO 639-2 does, and we have always
had them ever since RFC 3066.  Their use is discouraged.  Having a
Suppress-Script tag would amount to a claim that all the languages
of the collection share a common script, which is not likely to be
the case (some will usually be unwritten), nor easily proved,
because the languages that are in the collection are not enumerated
anywhere by ISO 639.

-- 
John Cowan    cowan at ccil.org    http://ccil.oJohn Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply:  "Many happy returns of the day!"