Status of recent proposals
doug at ewellic.org
Fri Oct 1 22:44:27 CEST 2010
Philip Newton <philip dot newton at gmail dot com> wrote:
>>> That "a convention exists for writing Wolof in the Arabic script" is very
>>> far from denying that "the overwhelming majority of documents in Wolof
>>> are written in the Latin script".
>> I agree with Kent on this one.
> And I do too, and I thought I had said as much earlier, which is why I
> was a bit surprised to see Doug say there was "no objection from the
> list on removing this field."
You guys are right; you did object. And Michael has rejected the
request, so this is all moot, as Philip said.
Personally, I would have thought a request to remove S-S would have a
much lower burden of proof than a request to add it. S-S means we
believe the language is overwhelmingly written in one script. Absence
of S-S does not necessarily mean we believe it is not; it could mean we
aren't sure, or don't think the basic use case for S-S (compatibility
with RFC 1766/3066 matching logic) applies.
But I hasten to add that my opinion was not the reason for claiming
there was no objection. I really did just forget.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages