Here comes the Yiddish

[Peter_Constable@sil.org]

On 2000-9-10, Harald wrote (in response to comments I had made on a dra=
ft):

<quote>
>7) Section 2.2:
>
>"Script variations, such as az-Arab and az-Cyrl (Azerbaijani in Arabic=

>   or Cyrillic script =FB these script codes are suggested by the pend=
ing
>   script code standard ISO/DIS 15924)"
>
>I have a few comments on this:

.....

All references to "script" deleted. When (or if) someone wants to regis=
ter
a script-based tag, the language tag reviewer will have to review this
question.
</quote>

Back then, I was inclined toward the opinion that Michael has now: that=

"language" tags should be just for language, but not for things like
writing system or orthography. I guess I've changed since then, probabl=
y
since in looking at real implementations it struck me that people are
rarely interested *just* in language identify; usually, they are
distinguishing writing systems and orthographies. Given that most data
they're working with is text, that seems fitting.

If we do want to keep "language" tags distinct from issues of writing
system and orthography, then we need to figure out how to get that
architected in a way that can really get implemented prontissimo, and w=
e're
going to have to deal with how to cope with existing implementations th=
at
already conflate it all into the RFC 3066 tag, and we *are* going to ha=
ve
to back peddle on our own decisions with regard to identifiers for Germ=
an
orthographic reforms. Frankly, I don't see it happening, but if people
driving implementations (e.g. W3C i18n WG) want to make it happen, I'm
willing to help. We need *some* solution, and we need it soon.


- Peter


-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Peter Constable

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

=