suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members
cowan at ccil.org
Wed Oct 20 18:22:12 CEST 2010
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Peter Constable
<petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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.
It's a bad assumption that languages without S-S information must be
tagged by tags with script information. Unless you are going to
localize into more than one script, I see no point in adding
Suppress-Script: information to a non-639-1 language; its purpose is
to tell you the default script when there is one. If there is no
actual script issue, as with the great majority of written languages,
then you just choose to use appropriate language tags (without script)
as locale names.
Languages with 639-1 codes are a different matter, because they were
valid before RFC 4646, which would mean that en-Latn-US would not
match en-US, and therefore the former should be avoided for the sake
of compatibility with old matchers. Remember that S-S didn't exist in
our original drafts of 4646, and was imposed on us by the IETF for the
sake of backward compatibility.
> (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.)'
I don't understand this comparison.
More information about the Ietf-languages