NEW-MODIFY LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION for "Ethi"

[Debbie Garside]

Doug wrote:

>My preference is for items B and C (in that order); that is, changing the
existing description to match the underlying ISO standard, discarding the
original as irrelevant, and adding the ASCII fallback for ease in typing and
searching. 

For consistency, my preference is for the reverse (C then B) as not all
records within the Registry need a hexadecimal representation.  

Best regards

Debbie Garside

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: 29 June 2006 06:59
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: NEW-MODIFY LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION for "Ethi"

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> observed:

> Consensus is not unanimity.

I'd like to see if we can reach consensus on what to do with Ethiopic first,
and perhaps we can extend the decision and the logic behind it to other
apostrophe and modifier-letter cases.

Currently we have an entry in the Registry that looks like this:

--
Type: script
Subtag: Ethi
Description: Ethiopic (Ge&#x2018;ez)
Added: 2005-10-16
--

Note in particular the Description field, identified here as [A]:

[A]  Description: Ethiopic (Ge&#x2018;ez)

This reflects the original entry in ISO 15924 for this script, using that
character U+2018 LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK.  This listing has been changed
in ISO 15924 to use U+02BB MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA instead, leading to
the following proposed change in the description:

[B]  Description: Ethiopic (Ge&#x2BB;ez)

It would also be possible to include an ASCII fallback description, with the
character in question changed to U+0027 APOSTROPHE, as shown below:

[C]  Description: Ethiopic (Ge'ez)

The question is this:  Which Description field(s) from the set {A, B, C}
should be used in the Registry entry for this script, and (optionally) in
what order?  Bear in mind that the order of Description fields makes no
difference in principle, but in practice some users may view the item listed
first as "preferred" in some way.

If everyone would state their preference for this specific case, along with
a brief explanation of *why* it is your preference -- even if you have
already made this clear in the general case -- we should be able to
determine a list-wide consensus.  My preference is for items B and C (in
that order); that is, changing the existing description to match the
underlying ISO standard, discarding the original as irrelevant, and adding
the ASCII fallback for ease in typing and searching.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages