Modification Request: frr (Suppress-Script: Latn)
everson at evertype.com
Tue Oct 9 10:04:59 CEST 2007
At 15:30 -0700 2007-10-08, Addison Phillips wrote:
>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?
That would be a problem. A problem of e-mail volume and the time it
would take Doug and me and IANA to process them.
>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.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages