Suppress-Script for Korean?

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at
Wed Jul 25 03:54:15 CEST 2007

Hi -

> From: <Karen_Broome at>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Suppress-Script for Korean?
> I realize you're the expert here,

I'm not an expert in Japanese.  I can barely say "hello."  :-) 
Martin, on the other hand, could give a pretty authoritative account of
the current state of affairs.

>  but based on what I read, pure Hiragana 
> and Katakana may have been more popular in the past or for informal use. I 
> believe the pure forms were also used by women in the past.
> So, question: When we use Suppress-Script, do we consider historical forms 
> of the language, or is this designation only considered in terms of 
> current use? Raising this issue with Hiragana made me realize that I don't 
> know the answer to this question.

This is a special case of the general question on the tagging of historical forms.
When that discussion happened on the ltru at list in January of this year,
the general sense was that unless the language tag itself identified the language
as belonging to a particular era / historical variety, the assumption was that the
modern variety (whatever that might mean) is what is intended.  If anyone thinks
RFC 4646bis needs to say anything in particular about this issue, please
direct comments to the ltru at mailing list, since ietf-languages at
is not the place for that general discussion.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list