Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn

Michael Everson everson at
Thu Mar 9 21:44:27 CET 2006

At 08:13 -0800 2006-03-09, Addison Phillips wrote:
>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.

Then I should be well within my responsibilites to deny Frank's 
request. In the first place, it was stated to be a "testdrive" and so 
can be considered frivolous. In the second, no rationale was given 
for why Northern Frisian should require such a specification. I doubt 
anyone is confused about Northern Frisian.

>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.

I don't believe that the request responds to any user requirement, 
and user requirement is one criterion (of many) that we have taken 
into account in the past.

>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

Not so in the case of Northern Frisian, I think.

>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).

I can't think of any language that really needs this spelled out.

Of course, the ugliness that revolved around the revision of the RFC 
is one of the reasons I (and probably some others) did not 
participate in its revision, but now we can find its bugs and prepare 
for the next revision. :-)
Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list