Status of recent proposals

Peter Constable petercon at
Fri Oct 1 22:45:46 CEST 2010

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Kent Karlsson

>> 4.  Wolof Suppress-Script
>> This was proposed by Peter (with form) on September 19.  Peter noted 
>>that a convention exists for writing Wolof in the Arabic script, 
>>making the Latin Suppress-Script field inappropriate.  There was no 
>>objection from the list on removing this field.

> 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". The former may well be true without in any way diminishing the truth of the latter. For this suppress-script to be removed, I'd like to see a convincing argument that the latter statement isn't true.

I've already explained this: it's not just that somewhere someone defined "a convention"; the Senegal Ministry of Education is evidently producing curriculum for Wolof in Arabic script. I would have cited a second source for this, produced by the MoE and in this orthography, but I only had a picture of the Arabic-script title and was not confident in my ability to reproduce the text accurately.

As I recall, the idea of using suppress-script came from me. Suppress-script was intended for cases in which the overwhelming majority of content, and any case in which a government is producing curriculum for a given language in a second script is clearly to be excluded from use of suppress-script.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list