Last call for ISO 15924-based updates

Mark Davis mark at
Tue Mar 17 04:59:26 CET 2009

In terms of action, it is simple. You have to add the code, but if there is
no consensus to add a comment, then don't add a comment. Additional comments
can always be added later on; there is no reason to delay for them.


On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 20:15, Doug Ewell <doug at> wrote:

> Mark Davis wrote:
>  Now, in my opinion, 15924 should provide variants for major orthographic
>> differences; for one thing, it would make usage in major clients like BCP47
>> work much better in those cases: currently major orthographic differences
>> count as less than minor regional differences in BCP47 lookup. And for
>> another, 15924 already has variants like Latf -- it would not be a great
>> stretch to add major othographic variants.
> I'm sure all of us can think of something missing in one of the commonly
> discussed standards that we wish were there, or something that is present or
> planned that we wish were not.
>  Had Addison and I realized that the script JAC wouldn't allow major
>> orthographic variants as script variants, I believe that we would have
>> proposed a way to register subtags in the script position when we did our
>> first draft of 4646, to get around the JAC position, and have BCP47 function
>> more properly. We thought that the JAC would be more practical. But that's
>> water under the bridge.
> Actually I don't think using variants for IPA et al. is such a bad idea. I
> think we had a good idea about the subtags appearing from left to right in
> decreasing order of "importance," but I don't think a roomful of people, or
> maybe even a closetful, will agree on which subtags are more "important,"
> and I'm afraid we won't find many applications that actually take this into
> account.
>  While I disagree with that position of the JAC regarding orthographies,
>> that doesn't mean that there isn't a principled difference between the cases
>> of IPA and Zinh where they can reasonably draw a line.
> I'm hoping we can set aside philosophical differences about ISO 15924 and
> reach an agreement on this apparently crucial "comment or no comment"
> decision that is holding 'Zinh' out of the Registry.  I mean, I'm sure
> nobody is suffering because 'Zinh' is not yet in the Registry, but it would
> be nice to finish pending business.
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
>  ˆ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list