Suppress-Script for Korean?

Doug Ewell dewell at
Fri Jul 27 05:13:28 CEST 2007

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> (Myself I remember the case for belarussian where the existing 
> standard did not need an additional variant subtag since in some since 
> it was the default value; whereas the classical variety did need such 
> a subtag--or else would be confused with the other.  Default values 
> may be different than suppress-script of course, but . . . )

This might seem like it has something to do with the Korean 
Suppress-Script question, but it doesn't really.

The two main writing systems used for Belarusian are Latin and Cyrillic; 
the latter is further subdivided into Taraskievica and 
whatever-I'm-supposed-to-call-the-other-orthography.  There is no 
question that Cyrillic is predominant over Latin for writing Belarusian, 
to the point where setting 'Cyrl' as the Suppress-Script is without 
controversy.  Variants like 'tarask' have no bearing on Suppress-Script.

The predominant writing system for Korean is Hangul combined with some 
small amount (possibly zero) of Hanja.  I don't think there's any debate 
about that; the question is whether this can be represented as 'Kore' 
("Hangul + Han") or whether it can only be 'Hang'.  'Kore' makes sense 
as a Suppress-Script for Korean if and only if the former is true.

"Default values" for a language or variant, such that the "default 
value" would not require qualification by a variant while other values 
would, are not defined anywhere within RFC 4646.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list