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

[Peter Constable]

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> Currently we have 7844 language subtags, 134 of which have S-S.  Adding
> 48 more (a 35% increase) does not pose any architectural problems, but 
> could send us down a perfectionist rabbit hole where each and every 
> language is subject to the S-S debate.  

That's not at all what I'm seeking. These are cases that I think are clear, and cases also in which I have found usage of tags without script subtags where the lack of script information is presenting some interop issues. If s-s fields aren't added, we'll have implementations that carry private data; but that may still leave interop issues with other implementations that don't carry the same data. Putting s-s fields into these records makes that less likely.


> Ethnologue says that speakers of Bozaba ('bzo', population 5500) in the 
> DRC "also use Lingala mainly in the market."  Since Lingala has an S-S of 
> 'Latn', does it follow that Bozaba should as well?  

You're chasing the fallacy of the excluded middle: you seem to be suggesting that are options are binary: status quo, or that we have to engage in a debate over Bozaba and thousands of other languages. I am not suggesting any changes related to Bozaba at this time.




Peter