<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Proposal to remove Suppress-Script from </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Den 2008-11-22 20.53, skrev "Doug Ewell" <<a href="doug@ewellic.org">doug@ewellic.org</a>>:<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF">> Kent Karlsson has proposed, on the LTRU list, to remove the Suppress-Script <BR>
> value 'Latn' from the language subtags 'cpe' ("Creoles and pidgins, <BR>
> English-based (Other)") and 'son' ("Songhai languages"), noting that:
> (a) "it seems inappropriate to have a 'Suppress-Script' for a collection code, <BR>
> even if the script given is used for all languages covered by the collection <BR>
> code," and
<BR>
</FONT>This was my general proposition. I don't know why 'son' and 'cpe' ever<BR>
got a "Suppress-Script" even though they are collection codes.<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><BR>
> (b) there is a specific inconsistency in that 'son' has a <BR>
> Suppress-Script while the proposed RFC 4646bis language subtag 'dje'<BR>
> ("Zarma") does not, even though Zarma is a Songhai language.<BR>
</FONT>This was just an example. I haven't gone through all codes that would<BR>
would (presumably) be covered by either 'son' nor 'cpe' (but see below).<BR>
<BR>
/kent k<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><BR>
<BR>
> What do ietf-languages participants think about this?
> I have tried to represent Kent's position fairly and without bias; any<BR>
> corrections are most appreciated. For reference, 'cpe' and 'son' are<BR>
> the only collection subtags that currently have a Suppress-Script, and<BR>
> none of the 7000+ new language subtags added by RFC 4645bis (collection<BR>
> or individual) has a Suppress-Script.<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>