(no subject)

Peter_Constable@sil.org Peter_Constable@sil.org
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:30:27 -0600

On 12/04/2002 10:01:07 AM Scripts2 wrote:

>It's not a different spoken language, though for browsers reading
>text, the differences are worth providing for, self-evidently...

>However, currently, while users of RFC 3066 have a means of language
>tagging, but they have no means of script tagging available.
>We wait on ISO getting around to it,

That's not quite the issue. ISO will, hopefully, provide us with a set of
script IDs. The bigger issue has to be with metadata models; e.g. wrt
browsers reading text, is HTML going to be modified to introduce a distinct
metadata attribute that deals with script? Is XML going to be revised to
add something like xml:script? Or are these protocols going to be assuming
that lang / xml:lang already covers it all? I suspect that both the authors
of those protocols and the users are already making that assumption.

>If (e) was done under the RFC process, whether ISO publishes
>ISO 15924 or not is then irrelevant to us.

It's true that we could write an RFC that makes reference to something
other than a published ISO standard. Michael's issue, though, is whether
one RFC should be mixing both language IDs and script IDs into a single

- Peter

Peter Constable

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