<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Whatever you do is fine, so long as you have backwards compatibility (that is, 'cpe-Latn' will be backwards compatible with 'cpe' ?? I should know whether it will be backwards compatible or not by now).<BR>
<BR>
However I do note that many English dialects are unwritten but if content in these were to be tagged, the suppress-script would still be Latin (& thus unwritten content would have to be tagged 'Zxxx' I think).<BR>
<BR>
So it's still to my mind possible to have a suppress-script for collections if there's a real reason--in the same way that we have suppress-scripts for languages that include dialects. Otherwise go ahead. <BR>
<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR><BR><BR>> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:58:20 -0500<BR>> To: cewcathar@hotmail.com<BR>> CC: ietf-languages@iana.org<BR>> Subject: Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'<BR>> From: cowan@ccil.org<BR>> <BR>> CE Whitehead scripsit:<BR>> <BR>> > In any case, why is suppress-script not registered for any other<BR>> > collection codes? (There seem to be individual language subtags<BR>> > registered for some of the language included in these collections<BR>> > & these do have the suppress-script field--but what is the point<BR>> > of having these subtags--are they to be used with the individual<BR>> > language subtags? or alone? or both? if alone, is there any reason<BR>> > not to have a suppress-script when applicable other than expediency?<BR>> > Is there any recommendation not to have it?)<BR>> <BR>> We have collection subtags because ISO 639-2 does, and we have always<BR>> had them ever since RFC 3066. Their use is discouraged. Having a<BR>> Suppress-Script tag would amount to a claim that all the languages<BR>> of the collection share a common script, which is not likely to be<BR>> the case (some will usually be unwritten), nor easily proved,<BR>
Good point and I agree; the only way these should keep the suppress script is if we can ascertain that overwhelmingly the content when written is written in Latin script; the unwritten languages can be a problem. My guess is that most often people who try to write these down will do so using a Roman alphabet ; if left audio then these can be tagged with a script code of 'Zxxx'.<BR>
<BR>
And, in fact, many varieties/dialects of English are usually unwritten.<BR>
<BR>
However, these English dialects still share the suppress-script of Latn; and my guess is that most French, Portuguese, and English Creoles if written will be written in the Latin script <BR>
<BR>> because the languages that are in the collection are not enumerated<BR>> anywhere by ISO 639.<BR>
(But some are registered: Tok Pisin is, as is Haitian Creole; I can't find Guadaloupe Creole however . . . )<BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.oJohn Cowan cowan@ccil.org <A href="http://ccil.org/~cowan">http://ccil.org/~cowan</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>> Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:<BR>> "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"<BR>> El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"<BR><BR></body>
</html>