Modification Request: frr (Suppress-Script: Latn)
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Oct 9 10:20:43 CEST 2007
Mark Davis wrote:
> I agree that suppress-script is flawed.
We found nothing better for backwards compatibility in 4646.
> Maybe if we want a bright line, the "existed prior to 4646" is a
> reasonable cutoff,
I doubt it...
> or we just stop as of 4646bis.
...minimallly better. Another tack could be "only for 639-2".
> Or we just continue to accept suppress-script requests, if
> it has not been a huge burden so far....
IMO the best idea, after all it's not very different from
registrations of variants.
An ideal example was the registration of "nqo", just get it
right a.s.a.p. And "fy" + "frr" + "frs" were counterexamples,
there was never any doubt that all sorts of Frisian are written
in the Latin script for a very long time.
More information about the Ietf-languages