[gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org: ICANN Draft TranslationProgrammeopen for public comment]

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, all.Frank, thanks for your reply.  Thanks for pointing out that Korean does have kore as its suppress script; thus these 11 languages should not need a script subtag (unless there is a lot of hanja in a Korean document; I believe hanja is occasionally used some for scientific writing??).
 
(Of course, there is always a possibility, however remote, that one of ICANN's meetings will be held somewhere where there are, for example, two orthographies in use; and ICANN will decide not only to provide interpretation in the language of the host country, but also to make relevant documents available in the host language.  The documents of course still might be provided in a 'default' orthography; however it might also happen that proponents of each orthograpy would offer to provide free transcriptions of the documents into their respective orthographies, & ICANN, for whatever reason, & then of course it might be necessary to use more than a simple subtag to indicate the orthography . . .   Just a wild scenario; but anything is possible.)
 
So I think still that BCP 47 is probably the right call.
 
(Sorry, I'm still reading the draft; I skimmed it initially; it does not seem to mention BCP 47 at all; is that intentional?  Or just an oversight? I've still got to go through it more carefully . . .
Thanks for your patience)
 
Best wishes,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
 
y at xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:23:50 +0100> > CE Whitehead wrote:> > > I really do not see that there will be much need for scripts> > to be identified--except for Korean--as the default script> > should generally serve for ICANN's purposes> > I'm not sure why you pick Korean as example, about a year ago> it got a Suppress-Script: Kore here. Maybe it's my fault, I> mentioned that one source I checked for the Frisian, Sorbian,> and German languages didn't confirm "Kore". But that was an> *old* (roughly 1990) source, TUS 5.0 has a newer reference to> a KP standard. In other words "ko" should be fine for ICANN.
 
Sorry. You are right; in July of last year ietf chose kore as it's suppress-script after some discussion; though there is another script.
It was the only language on the list for which I could think of an issue.
Sorry.
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080303/8c394096/attachment.html