Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn
imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Thu Mar 9 17:55:24 CET 2006
Hi Michael Everson, et al,
RFC 3066bis makes a VERY non-backward-compatible change
by inserting 'script' subtags after 'language' and BEFORE
'region'. All existing deployed software then breaks
on existing deployed language tags when an unnecessary
'script' subtag is included in a search request.
Suppress-Script was added to partially ameliorate this
It is critically important that Suppress-Script be filled
in for every language where it is appropriate in the
Contributors from the email, LDAP, and printing communities
reluctantly agreed to concur with this non-backward-compatible
placement of 'script' subtags _only_ if Suppress-Script was
added and made as ubiquitous as possible in the registry.
Michael, if you seriously intend to impede the population
of Suppress-Script in the registry, then RFC3066bis MUST
be dropped and reworked. This is a central feature.
- Ira (for the IEEE/ISTO PWG Steering Committee and
FSG Open Printing Steering Committee)
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Addison
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:13 AM
> To: 'John Cowan'; 'Michael Everson'
> Cc: 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script
> 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'.
> 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).
> Addison Phillips
> 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
> > field (which has no counterpart in RFC 3066) on a language subtag is
> > to specify the script that is customarily used to write the
> > 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
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages