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

[Doug Ewell]

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> What MS has implemented used the tags quz-BO, quz-EC and quz-PE, which
> are the tags that follow the recommendation in 5646 and that you
> yourself gave: don't include script subtags (quz-Latn-BO, etc) because
> that would be redundant and unnecessary. But the registry does not
> capture the fact that that would be redundant and unnecessary because
> the record for quz doesn't include the s-s field. Now when
> implementing software that would compare tags, whether the tags are
> parsed or not, we need additional data indicating that quz and
> quz-Latn are to be treated as equivalent, and likewise for quz-BO and
> quz-Latn-BO, etc.
>
> I don't want to add subtags: I'm not asking to add subtags in the
> registry, and I don't want users to include the Latn subtag in tags
> based on quz. The most reliable way to effect the latter is to add a
> s-s field to the record for quz so that the data in the registry
> reflects what we here know: that a Latn subtag would be redundant and
> unnecessary when used with quz. (And likewise for the other cases I've
> mentioned.)

I think I see Peter's point now: these requests are not about adding
generalized meta-information about the Quechua languages, but
specifically adding the information that Latin is the overwhelming
default script, which is the whole purpose of S-S.  Therefore, I
withdraw any objections.

In retrospect, I wish we had foreseen the potential interaction between
macrolanguages, encompassed languages, and Suppress-Script during LTRU
II, and had created a rule that encompassed languages inherit S-S from
their macrolanguage unless overridden.  Any cases where macrolanguage A
has a single default script, but its encompassed language B does not,
could have been handled by omitting A's S-S field.  Unfortunately, we
could only do this now by revising the RFC.

Almost completely lost in this thread are Peter's requests to add S-S to
the two languages encompassed by 'fa', and to 'fil' and 'mi' on their
own.  The former falls into the same category as Quechua (except there
are 2 subtags at issue, not 44), and the latter seems non-controversial.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­