Status of recent proposals
petercon at microsoft.com
Fri Oct 1 23:55:19 CEST 2010
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] 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