Wolof suppress script

[Peter Constable]

No comments? Perhaps a proposed change will evoke some comments:

   LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
   1. Name of requester: Peter Constable
   2. E-mail address of requester: petercon at microsoft.com
   3. Record Requested:

      Type: language
      Subtag: wo
      Description: Wolof
      Comments: orthographies in Latin and Arabic scripts

   4. Intended meaning of the subtag: Wolof

   5. Reference to published description
      of the language (book or article):

DPLN Senegal. ca 2002. Tableau Général des Alphabets - Arabe/Langues Nationales en Caractères Coraniques
Harmonisés et leurs Correspondants en Caractères Latins. Direction de la Promotion des Langues
Nationales (DPLN). 23, Rue Calmette. Dakar.

   6. Any other relevant information: When the subtag registry was initialized, the record was added with a suppress-script field set to Latn. However, there is an Arabic-script orthography for Wolof, in addition to a Latin orthography. Since a suppress-script is intended to be used in cases in which a single script is used "to write the overwhelming majority of documents for the given language", it is inappropriate for this field to be used for Wolof.



From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 6:38 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion (ietf-languages at iana.org)
Subject: Wolof suppress script

The record for Wolof as a suppress-script field:

Type: language
Subtag: wo
Description: Wolof
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Latn

But Wolof is written in both Latin and Arabic, and in fact a department under the Senegal Ministry of Education<http://www.education.gouv.sn/administration/directions.html>, Direction d'alphabetisation et les langues nationales, has published a teaching manual for Wolof in Arabic script and has standardized the Arabic-script orthography for Wolof. (This is not exclusive of standardized Latin orthography for Wolof.) Are we sure the suppress-script field is appropriate in this case?



Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100919/a67aeddd/attachment.html>