Konkani Suppress-Script

[Doug Ewell]

Mark Davis wrote:

> I did not appear to make myself clear. Let me try again.
>
> Roles. LTRU is responsible for developing the rules for registration. 
> This group is responsible for applying the rules. So rule development 
> goes in LTRU, not here.
>
> Separate issue. Does LTRU understand enough about the issues that 
> arise here to make reasonable rules? Answer: yes, because there is a 
> large overlap, and so a large number of people there have seen and 
> understand the issues at hand.

I did understand this.  I think the disconnect comes from the fact that 
I'm not talking about developing *rules* for registering 
Suppress-Script -- those are already covered in the RFC -- but 
*operational guidelines* that explain and guide this group's criteria 
for applying the rules.

For instance, the rules written into RFC 4646 by LTRU state that 
Suppress-Script "indicates a script used to write the overwhelming 
majority of documents for the given language" (Section 3.1). 
Operational guidelines might provide a somewhat more specific 
interpretation of "overwhelming" and should give examples of sufficient 
and insufficient evidence -- as an example, a single Wikipedia article 
has been determined not to be sufficient evidence.

Companies that adhere to an ISO 9000 quality system have "standard 
operating procedures" and "work desk instructions."  Those are somewhat 
analogous to the difference between rules and operational guidelines 
that I'm trying to draw.

--
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages