Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

[CE Whitehead]

Doug, Thanks for your reply; it does seem that most English-based Creoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-based_creole_languages) are written using the Latin alphabet . . . but since there is no guarantee that they be written with this alphabet, I remain undecided.  However, since suppress-script is just a recommendation, I don't see a real problem with retaining it in these subtags (we can research the remaining subtags whenever to see if we should add it to any). If we drop the suppress-script for these two subtags, I have--after reviewing again RFC4647--questions about 'backwards compatibility' (I may not understand filtering and scuh correctly--I've not given this draft the time that I've given other drafts): (1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn" as well;but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return "cpe-Latn-PG"?)(2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return "cpe-Latn-PG"?  Is this right?? Thanks --C. E. Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:14:50 -0700> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>> Subject: Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:> > > Whatever you do is fine, so long as you have backwards compatibility > > (that is, 'cpe-Latn' will be backwards compatible with 'cpe' ?? I > > should know whether it will be backwards compatible or not by now).> > RFC 4647 explains the concept of matching.Thanks for the pointer; I know I have to read that RFC a bit more carefully sometime,but here is my understanding:(1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn" as well;but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return "cpe-Latn-PG"?)(2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return "cpe-Latn-PG"?  Is this right??> > I don't agree with John that the presence of unwritten languages within > the collection is an argument either for or against Suppress-Script. > S-S says that *if* the content is written, it is almost certainly > written in such-and-so script, so the script subtag should ordinarily be > suppressed. But it doesn't say that the content must be written, or > writable. Thanks.  I agree with your interpretation here.> > > > if left audio then these can be tagged with a script code of 'Zxxx'.> > Or not. There's no requirement that unwritten text must be tagged as > such. Thanks for making this clear.  Sorry.> > That wasn't his point. ISO 639 doesn't tell of which of its 7,600 > languages belong to collection X, so it's impossible to determine > whether the S-S should apply to all of them. So we are still left with the question as to whether suppress-script is applicable to these two subtags.> > Suppress-Script is by far the most overdebated topic on this list.> > --> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090103/4342f74d/attachment.htm