Status of recent proposals
Philip Newton
philip.newton at gmail.com
Sat Oct 2 09:50:25 CEST 2010
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> 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.
That makes sense to me.
(Also in light of your comment when I added S-S: Latn to rm that it's
not necessary to add S-S to all languages that lack one.)
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list