Here comes the Yiddish
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:27:17 -0600

[I'm just digging into this thread --- groan. Sorry if my comments have
already been addressed by others.]

On 12/01/2002 01:13:18 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:

>ISO doesn't control what goes into RFCs.  I'm thinking that RFC 3066
>could be revised to mention the use of ISO 15924 script codes even
>before that standard is published.

Hopefully pressure will start getting put on TC46 to get on with things. I
think it would be better not to revise RFC 3066 to make reference to script
codes until 15924 is published.

There are a couple of other reasons for considering a revision to the RFC:
anticipation of ISO 639-3, and I think the problem of "no more new ISO 639
two letter codes where a three-letter code already exists" ought to be
solved where the real need is: in IETF's protocol (i.e. it would be better
if we simply said, "use only these 2-letter codes" rather than assume that
ISO will never add another 2-letter code). I'd be inclined to deal with all
three at once.

In the mean time, I don't see any harm with registering tags as Sean has
requested (though I'd make sure they conform to what we expect would be
used with 15924).

>Didn't the original text of RFC 3066 mention script codes?  Was that
>language removed from the final RFC because the standard wasn't
>published, or was there some other reason?

I think some felt the topic needed a bit more processing before script
codes were added.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485