suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members
petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Oct 20 17:30:22 CEST 2010
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> 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 suspect probably" is not very compelling.
OK; let me rephrase: There are several language subtags in the registry that don't have s-s fields but that could etc.
> 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?
We are working on product implementations that are impacted by this. I raise the Quechua cases because Windows is localized into Cusco Quechua, hence Quechua is a case that we need to support; and because tags without script subtags have been used.
The Quechua case is actually one that seems like a no-brainer precisely because the record for qu already includes the s-s field, and all of the records for specific Quechua varieties include the macrolanguage: qu field, so applications would likely have problems if the specific varieties didn't actually behave that way. Adding s-s fields to them makes that happen.
(It's kind of like having encoded characters for capital and small letter foo with macron, and then having decomposition mappings for the latter to a small foo + comb macron but not having any capital foo and no decomposition mapping for the former: there's a gap in the paradigm that implementations might trip over.)
More information about the Ietf-languages