Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn
addison at yahoo-inc.com
Thu Mar 9 17:13:00 CET 2006
Suppress-Script's purpose was to suppress the use of the script subtag in
cases where it would cause problems with *existing* language tags. I argued
that it was a bad choice for precisely the reason Michael cites (I thought
"require-script" was a better solution, since few languages are customarily
written in two or more scripts--but I was basically alone in thinking this).
For languages not previously encoded, it would not hurt anything to omit the
field (yes, we'd end up with users creating tags in the form
"frr-Latn-XX-yyyy" sometimes), but this is probably not the end of the
world. Users are already cautioned not to use subtags that add no
distinguishing value, as 'Latn' usually does not for 'frr'. Suppress-Script
is an informative field that provides a stronger level of caution to
registry users and should be reserved, in my opinion, for cases where
confusion would otherwise result.
On the other hand, it is quite clear that the rules permit Frank to make the
request and that Michael needs to respond with a decision within two weeks
or issue an extension. I don't see any evidence that this request is wrong,
so I reluctantly support its inclusion, but I would also suggest that we
*not* go through the exercise of making all possible suppress-script fields.
If someone feels strongly enough to issue the occasional request, it should
be, in my opinion, honored if it is reasonable and can be demonstrated to be
I'll note that for many languages it won't be possible for us to accurately
gauge if a language subtag should get the extra level of warning about the
use of the script subtag that Suppress-Script provides. I don't think we
should get into the business of warning about the use of script subtags
explicitly unless there is a real need (beyond the mere desire for the data
set to be complete).
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: 2006?3?9? 6:55
> To: Michael Everson
> Cc: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn
> Michael Everson scripsit:
> > >BTW, I support Frank's proposal -- once the subtag 'frr' is added --
> > >and agree with him that dozens more Suppress-Scripts need to be
> > >added. Somebody just needs to do the research on them, as Frank has
> > >done for 'frr'.
> > Please explain why.
> That question is rather open-ended. The purpose of the "Suppress-Script"
> field (which has no counterpart in RFC 3066) on a language subtag is
> to specify the script that is customarily used to write the language.
> RFC 3066bis uses the phrase "used to write the overwhelming majority of
> documents for the given language".
> For example, English is customarily written in the Latin script, so it
> is appropriate to record a Suppress-Script of "Latn". For languages
> which are not customarily written, or are customarily written in more
> than one script, it is appropriate to have no value for Suppress-Script.
> The purpose of Suppress-Script is to allow the users of language tags to
> avoid the routine use of tags like "en-Latn", which convey no information
> beyond the simple "en" in most contexts (though they are not actually
> forbidden, as it may be desirable in some circumstances to contrast
> en-Latn with en-Brai).
> It is I think uncontroversial that Northern Frisian is customarily written
> in the Latin script. Therefore, this registration should be permitted.
> Work hard, John Cowan
> play hard, cowan at ccil.org
> die young, http://www.ap.org
> rot quickly. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages