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

Michael Everson everson at
Wed Oct 20 17:19:24 CEST 2010

On 19 Oct 2010, at 21:10, Peter Constable wrote:

>>> Without s-s for a case like qub, then implementations may end up having to coming up with their own data to know that qub uses Latin script.
>> I don't see a need to process fifty new requests because of your "suspicion". 
> This isn't a matter of suspicion except, apparently, on your part (you suspect this is a matter of suspicion). I'm responding to real implementation issues. And Misha doesn't appear to be responding based on suspicions floating around Thomson Reuters.

You said:

On 18 Oct 2010, at 19:41, Peter Constable 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’d like to see what others would think about adding s-s fields for these cases:

I don't guess that there are serious market issues regarding 40+ varieties of Quechua. Nor that there are people confused by Persian and Dari not being written in Greek script. 

"I suspect probably" is not very compelling.

Processing 50+ requests is not an enjoyable exercise for anybody who has to do the processing. Not for Doug, not for me, not for Amanda. Is something actually broken, Peter? Are people finding their Quechua data unreliable due to a lack of s-s? 

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list