<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<PRE> <BR> <BR> <BR>My goof, Doug, thanks for the correction!<BR> <BR>I am still not opposed to having suppress-script for variants--in hopes that the variants will be recognized in the future.<BR> <BR>The lack of recognition of variants is I suppose is the advantage of having [?]-[Latn] registered as the prefix for [pinyin] where the [?] stands for [zh] or any other language subtags (Tibetan or others) that we decide are appropriate.<BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR>cewcathar@hotmail.com<BR> <BR>From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org><BR>> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:<BR> <BR>>> Hi, John: I think the argument that I was responding to is that the<BR>>> script subtag helps to identify the kind of orthography when the<BR>>> variant subtag is not known. So I continue to consider the<BR>>> suppress-script field is the best solution!<BR> <BR>> Will someone please explain to me what good it would do to<BR> <BR> <BR>> associate a<BR>> Suppress-Script with a variant subtag if the tag consumer<BR> <BR> <BR>> doesn't<BR>> recognize the variant?<BR> <BR>--<BR>> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14<BR></PRE></body>
</html>