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

[Peter Constable]

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson

>> Actually, MS localizes into quz.

> So why did you suggest that we consider two score other varieties?

I really don't think it would make sense to have a s-s field in the record for quz but not in the records for other Quechua languages.


>> The way that the registry effects making script subtags redundant and unnecessary is to include s-s fields.

> Then why not revise the whole standard and do the job properly for all of the languages? 

For the same reason that you don't hold publication of ISO 10646 until you've done the job properly for all characters: it is far more practical to add information over time as it becomes known and understood.


> But I disagree anyway. If there isn't a script issue, there isn't a script issue. The unadorned tag should do just fine even without s-s.

The only way for there _not_ to be a script issue in software implementations is for the software to be informed when a script subtag is redundant and unnecessary. That's what the s-s field tells us. It seems to me the reason you're objecting isn't because the result would be bad -- the result would give the very thing you've said should happen. Therefore, I really am at a loss to understand _why_ you're objecting.

At this point, John Cowan has raised a concern, but he hasn't rebutted my last reply to him. Doug has said he doesn't object; Philip Newton has withdrawn his concern; Addison has said he thinks these requests should be approved if formally requested, and Misha Wolf has indicated that "Thomson Reuters would find more suppress-script values helpful". At this point, your objection appears to me to be unilateral, and as I said, I really don't get why you're objecting to something that would lead to practice you've indicated you think should be followed (don't include script subtags when not needed).



Peter