Modification Request: frr (Suppress-Script: Latn)

Addison Phillips addison at
Tue Oct 9 00:30:51 CEST 2007

Doug Ewell wrote:
> But... but... the LTRU co-chair said LTRU has to nail down the policy 
> that ietf-languages has to follow.  Which is it going to be?

That's fine. We can all discuss it again in LTRU.

> (BTW, this wasn't intended to be a comment about Michael. 

Mine wasn't either. I merely meant to observe that Michael clearly 
stated his unwillingness to set down guidelines other than those already 
in RFC 4646. If those guidelines are insufficient (and I don't believe 
that they are), then LTRU should deal with it.

> Practically 
> no two members of this list seem to have the same vision of how 
> Suppress-Script fields are supposed to be assigned.)

Suppress-Script is well defined. The problem is: the criteria make it 
difficult to reject requests such as Frank's at the head of this thread, 
even if the community is concerned about the potential number of them or 
its ability to evaluate them fairly. His request is entirely within the 
rules and scope allowed and seems likely to be reasonably correct. The 
problem: if we do 'frr', do we do all 7000 languages in ISO 639-3? What 
constitutes the "overwhelmingly" in:

This field indicates a script used to write the overwhelming majority of 
documents for the given language.

That, necessarily, is going to be the judgment of the reviewer, i.e. 
Michael. If it doesn't mean what RFC 4646 says, then what criteria could 
possibly be applied? I actually don't think Michael is wrong here. But I 
think that Suppress-Script, as designed, will generate a goodly number 
of "noise" requests for registration to no particular benefit.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list