Language subtag modification request: frr Suppres-Script Latn
everson at evertype.com
Thu Mar 9 21:52:27 CET 2006
At 10:02 -0800 2006-03-09, Mark Davis wrote:
>That is very much the wrong way to phrase it. RFC3066bis *allows*
>the insertion of script subtags; it does not require it. And this is
>not a backwards incompatibility with 3066 -- there are already such
>tags in 3066. However, the script, *like the country*, should only
>be included where it makes a difference, and the Suppress-Script was
>added to guide users of the registry in knowing when this should be
And who has come to the registry with this concern? English can't be
issued a "Suppress-script". I have many texts in English in other
scripts: In Runic, in Tengwar. I have a book all about writing
English in Cyrillic.
All of the scripts of the world are routinely transliterated into
Latin, by the United Nations and other authorities. Therefore *no*
language that primarily uses a non-Latin script is eligible for
"Suppress-script". And in many countries of the world, names in the
Latin script are routinely transcribed into non-Latin scripts. There
are often standards for doing this.
I think this is one which got away from you guys. Until I'm given
some grounds for real evaluation, I can't think of ANY reason to
apply a "Suppress-Script" specification.
>(I, like Addison, was of the view that the negative would have been
>more practical; specifying the few cases where the script is needed
>is rather more useful than listing all the cases where it is not.
>But that's in the past.)
It would be prudent NOT to allow any "Suppress-script" tags (or
whatever you call this field) to be registered now, as it seems
badly-thought out and will just cause grandfathering clauses in
>It isn't really a critical matter at all. Whether or not there is a
>suppress-script tag on frr, if I know enough about frr to be using
>the tag, I'm not going to be adding a Latn subtag on it.
>However, it is the responsibility of the language tag reviewer to --
>in a timely fashion -- review all of the requests made in accordance
>with the rules set down in 3066bis, and follow those rules in
>determining what changes to make to the registry. This is a
>straightforward request with an obvious answer, so I see no grounds
>for the reviewer to reject it.
I see lots of grounds for rejecting it, including its being proposed
to "testdrive" the system. I think it's done a good job. It gives
reasons to reject "Suppress-script" in general.
>Let's not move to inflamatory language quite so quickly. I don't
>think that Michael was yet clear enough on the responsibilities of
>the reviewer, not that he meant to impede them.
Rejecting things for good reason is part of the reviewer's
responsibility. It's not a rubber-stamping operation simply because a
proposal is well-formed according to the rules. You could get a piece
of software to do that.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages