Status of recent proposals

Peter Constable petercon at
Fri Oct 1 23:55:19 CEST 2010

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> 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.

I agree completely. I find it rather surprising that anyone is reluctant on this.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list