Status of recent proposals

Doug Ewell doug at
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 |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list