FW: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORMS

[Mark Davis]

What we appeared to come to rough consensus on was that we needed to
register the items for immediate* requirements, and also produce a
3066bis that allowed productive use of script codes, precisely for the
reason you cite.

Märk Dāvĭs
________
mark.davis at jtcsv.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
To: <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 08:26
Subject: Re: FW: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORMS


> Mark Davis <mark dot davis at jtcsv dot com> wrote:
>
> > As you and many other people have said, the ISO code representing
> > Serbian (for example) is *entirely* divorced from written form.
That
> > means that when I am *matching* languages, it matches any Serbian,
no
> > matter what script it is written in. When one is matching, there
is NO
> > notion of "default".
> >
> > But that means that if I do want to match documents with only
Serbian
> > written in Cyrllic, and not all possible Serbian documents, then I
> > need to have a separate code for that.
>
> In the light of arguments like this, can somebody please remind me
why
> it's such a bad idea to let script subtags be productive?
>
> It seems to me that would solve the problem Mark described, and
> acknowledge that a language can be written in a script other than
its
> "default" (i.e. Hindi in Latin, Taiwanese in Latin) while taking the
> burden off the Reviewer to find a justification for each such
> possibility.
>
> -Doug Ewell
>  Fullerton, California
>  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>