Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Fri Dec 17 18:00:04 CET 2010
If the bar for setting S-S is set so high that no realistic examination of
the data is sufficient for establishing it, then one should remove many of
the cases that are already there.
We don't really have a dog in this fight, since we use the much more
complete data in CLDR for default script behavior. But I have sympathy for
Peter's goal of making the S-S information actually useful for
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 08:38, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> Regarding the suggestions to add certain Suppress-Script fields and
> delete others, I remained convinced we should lean toward leaving them
> out unless the evidence is compelling and indisputable.
> The presence of S-S is a statement that we -- the Reviewer and
> ietf-languages list -- believe that language X is overwhelmingly written
> in script Y. The absence of S-S is not a statement one way or the
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages