suppress-script values for macrolanguage-encompassed languages

[Doug Ewell]

Two things in particular bother me about this thread:

1.  The conflict between macrolanguages and Suppress-Script.  I don't 
have an answer for this, but it seems wrong somehow that a given 
macrolanguage such as 'ar', which is commonly identified with a variety 
(Standard Arabic) that is overwhelmingly written in a single script, 
should not have a Suppress-Script of 'Arab' because there are certain 
minority varieties of that language like Cypriot Arabic that may not be 
overwhelmingly written in that script.  'ar' was supposed to be one of 
the classic use cases for Suppress-Script.

2.  The idea that we are now relying on individual research and 
"feedback from native bloggers and such" to determine Suppress-Script 
appropriateness.  I understood Suppress-Script to be for the obvious 
cases, to discourage people from adding patently pointless script 
subtags (as in "en-Latn" or "ru-Cyrl").

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­