CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Thu Sep 11 18:18:26 CEST 2008

   My goof, Doug, thanks for the correction! I am still not opposed to having suppress-script for variants--in hopes that the variants will be recognized in the future. The lack of recognition of variants is I suppose is the advantage of having [?]-[Latn] registered as the prefix for [pinyin] where the [?] stands for [zh] or any other language subtags (Tibetan or others) that we decide are appropriate. --C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at>> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote: >> Hi, John: I think the argument that I was responding to is that the>> script subtag helps to identify the kind of orthography when the>> variant subtag is not known. So I continue to consider the>> suppress-script field is the best solution! > Will someone please explain to me what good it would do to  > associate a> Suppress-Script with a variant subtag if the tag consumer  > doesn't> recognize the variant? --> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list