[Suppress-Script] Initial list of 300 languages

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Tue Mar 14 16:58:24 CET 2006

Caoimhin O Donnaile scripsit:

> I think this needs to be documented clearly in appropriate places, 
> because I don't  think it is clear from ISO 15924, and I am sure that I 
> am not the only Irish Gaelic speaker who would have automatically 
> assumed that Latg was defined in terms of character use rather than fonts.

I agree, though I'm not sure what counts as an appropriate place.
Michael will probably grumble that ISO 15924 is clear enough as it stands.

>  - traditional spelling with dot-above
>  - traditional spelling with 'h's
>  - reformed spelling with 'h's
> and possibly also for completeness:
>  - reformed spelling with dot-above

A plausible approach would be to register "1948", "1400", and "seimhiu"
as variant subtags.

> Maybe dot-above and 'h's variants would also be needed for Old and 
> Middle Irish (sga and mga) but I don't know much about these.  The 
> spelling was no doubt very variable anyway, with perhaps a mixture of 
> systems being used, so the tags would maybe only be useful for 
> "normalised" texts.

AFAIK h is used for lenition only in ph, th, ch (as in Welsh); other h's
sometimes represent an h-sound, sometimes nothing.  The dots exist only
in normalized forms for the convenience of students.

>    <html lang="en">
>    <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-ie">
>    <meta name="DC.Language" content="ga">
> which is of course wrong and inconsistent.

It certainly is.  What rubbish!

> "ga-IE" would carry no additional meaning as a language tag anyway.  
> (Unless we were going to start using ga-GB as a proxy for the Donegal 
> dialect; or for the traditional spelling which enjoys some residual 
> support in Donegal and the North, and is close to Scottish Gaelic 
> spelling - but I don't think we want to start down that route!)

No indeed.

> Now that I know that Latg is only about fonts, not characters, I think 
> it is likely to be of so little interest to most people that I think the
> Suppress-Script for "ga" should stay as Latn.  And maybe even sga and 
> mga should be given a Suppress-Script of Latn too??

I think so; alternatively, we can just wait on them until evidence emerges.

John Cowan                                cowan at ccil.org
At times of peril or dubitation,          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Perform swift circular ambulation,        http://www.ap.org
With loud and high-pitched ululation.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list