Suppress-Script for Korean?

Jon Hanna jon at
Wed Jul 25 16:15:58 CEST 2007

CE Whitehead wrote:
> Karen, I'm not the expert; that's for sure; but it's my guess that 
> Suppress-script is used for the most widely used contemporary form of 
> the language/script -- in cases where the languages is still spoken today.
> As for suppress-script for ancient languages, how it works/would work, I 
> will not venture a guess.

I think really it has to be a matter of something being so common as to 
be a "no brainer".

French is written in the Latin script. They go together enough to be 
such a "no brainer".

A script being used "in the past for informal use" seems enough to argue 
against a suppress-script to my mind unless "in the past" is more than a 
century ago.

If something seems artificial for "a document longer than a few words" 
but not for a short passage I think that should also be enough to 
consider that script to be in common use for the language in question. 
Quite a few important use-cases are rather short phrases after all.

Now. Whether that actually applies or not to Korean, I haven't a clue, 
but if it does apply to the extent that you could reasonably expect a 
literate native-speaker to recognise more than one script then I think 
it's not a candidate for suppress-script.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list