Modification Request: frr (Suppress-Script: Latn)

Michael Everson everson at
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.

Quite so.
Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list