Status of recent proposals

Philip Newton philip.newton at
Sat Oct 2 09:50:25 CEST 2010

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at> 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.)

Philip Newton <philip.newton at>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list