suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members

Philip Newton philip.newton at
Tue Oct 19 11:54:03 CEST 2010

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Constable <petercon at> wrote:
> There are several language subtags in the registry that don’t have
> suppress-script fields but that I suspect probably could have since there’s
> only ever been / is likely to be a single script used in modern
> orthographies.

I was under the impression that there's no hurry to *add* s-s to any
existing record (not even "for completeness", if other languages in
the same macrolanguage already have such a field), since the lack of
s-s doesn't take a position either way as to whether a language is
predominantly written with one script - and that s-s exists to fulfil
a certain matching need, which may or may not apply to a given

For example, how likely is it that somebody would mark a text as being
in "qub-Latn" rather than merely "qub", such that you would need "S-s:
Latn" in order for certain systems to consider both tags equivalent?

Philip Newton <philip.newton at>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list