<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Doug, Thanks for your reply; it does seem that most English-based Creoles (<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-based_creole_languages">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-based_creole_languages</A>) are written using the Latin alphabet . . . but since there is no guarantee that they be written with this alphabet, I remain undecided. However, since suppress-script is just a recommendation, I don't see a real problem with retaining it in these subtags (we can research the remaining subtags whenever to see if we should add it to any).<BR> <BR>If we drop the suppress-script for these two subtags, I have--after reviewing again RFC4647--questions about 'backwards compatibility' (I may not understand filtering and scuh correctly--I've not given this draft the time that I've given other drafts):<BR> <BR>(1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn" as well;<BR>but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return "cpe-Latn-PG"?)<BR>(2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return "cpe-Latn-PG"? <BR> <BR>Is this right??<BR> <BR>Thanks<BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead <BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR>> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:14:50 -0700<BR>> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org><BR>> Subject: Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'<BR>> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Whatever you do is fine, so long as you have backwards compatibility <BR>> > (that is, 'cpe-Latn' will be backwards compatible with 'cpe' ?? I <BR>> > should know whether it will be backwards compatible or not by now).<BR>> <BR>> RFC 4647 explains the concept of matching.<BR>Thanks for the pointer; I know I have to read that RFC a bit more carefully sometime,<BR>but here is my understanding:<BR><BR>(1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn" as well;<BR>but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return "cpe-Latn-PG"?)<BR>(2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return "cpe-Latn-PG"? <BR><BR> <BR>Is this right??<BR>> <BR><BR>> I don't agree with John that the presence of unwritten languages within <BR>> the collection is an argument either for or against Suppress-Script. <BR>> S-S says that *if* the content is written, it is almost certainly <BR>> written in such-and-so script, so the script subtag should ordinarily be <BR>> suppressed. But it doesn't say that the content must be written, or <BR>> writable.<BR> <BR>Thanks. I agree with your interpretation here.<BR>> <BR><BR>> <BR>> > if left audio then these can be tagged with a script code of 'Zxxx'.<BR>> <BR>> Or not. There's no requirement that unwritten text must be tagged as <BR>> such.<BR> <BR>Thanks for making this clear. Sorry.<BR>> <BR><BR>> That wasn't his point. ISO 639 doesn't tell of which of its 7,600 <BR>> languages belong to collection X, so it's impossible to determine <BR>> whether the S-S should apply to all of them.<BR> <BR>So we are still left with the question as to whether suppress-script is applicable to these two subtags.<BR>> <BR>> Suppress-Script is by far the most overdebated topic on this list.<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14<BR><BR><BR></body>
</html>