Status of recent proposals

Mark Davis ☕ mark at
Sat Oct 2 01:38:17 CEST 2010

I agree.


— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 14:55, Peter Constable <petercon at> wrote:
> 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.
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list