Wolof suppress script
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Sun Sep 19 21:26:29 CEST 2010
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
> 3. Record Requested:
>
> Type: language
> Subtag: wo
> Description: Wolof
> Comments: orthographies in Latin and Arabic scripts
>
> 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.
I'm OK with the lengthy justification in item 6, but I would not have
thought it necessary to include a Comments field in the Registry to
explain why a language subtag does *not* have a Suppress-Script.
S-S is informative, it is only a suggestion, it is based on incomplete
and non-scientific data, and if it is felt that a given language is not
overwhelmingly written in a given script and we should remove the value,
then we should remove it and be done with it.
Likewise, if we decided that some other language *is* overwhelmingly
written in one script and *should* have S-S and we simply missed it, we
should add it and be done with it, with no comment to justify our
action.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list