suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members

[Michael Everson]

On 20 Oct 2010, at 19:43, Peter Constable wrote:

> If there isn't a script issue, then indeed language tags without script subtags should be completely reasonable.

No. Completely redundant and unnecessary.

> But how is an implementer to know when that's the case? Your second sentence, "Unless...", doesn't make sense to me. Let me restate without as many negatives: "If a language uses only one script, there is no point in adding s-s information to ISO 639-2/-3 languages; its purpose is to tell you the default script when there is one." The logical argument you're trying to make completely escapes me.

He means for a language with more than one script, s-s defines a default.

> If a language clearly uses only one script (in common scenarios), it seems to me it would be helpful for implementers to know that, and that s-s is a convenient way to do that.

"It seems to me", then, that you are asking us to add 6,000 s-s tags, since s-s is a convenient way to indicate that most of them use only one script. 

> And qu-PE or qu-Latn-PE are valid but would not match; and the same is also true for quz-PE and quz-Latn-PE: pre-4646 habits of not using script subtags have persisted beyond publication of 4646.

So, you're saying that everyone should be using script subtags? 

> In fact, you have here suggested that script subtags don't need to be included in tags for mono-script 639-2/-3 languages, but that only feeds this problem--unless people have some way to know when script subtags can be dispensed with. Adding s-s fields in the clear cases as we come across them is the obvious way to achieve that.

I've said this before. If that is the intent, go, make your list of 6,000 s-s candidates, and get that approved and processed NOT by the Reviewer and Clerk and Amanda, but in a revision of the RFC. 

> Otherwise, perhaps we should be freezing s-s fields and recommending that tags _always_ include script subtags except for the grandfathered cases for which we have s-s fields.

You'd better make this case to the LTRU. I don't think it's the general consensus view. 

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/