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

[Doug Ewell]

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> 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.

I know you're not seeking that.  My concern is that others may see this 
as an open door to investigating every language in the Registry and 
assigning S-S or having to prove why not.

Perhaps there should be a statement somewhere that each S-S request, 
like every request, will be examined on its own merits, and cannot be 
expected to sail in based on the "precedent" of previous successful 
requests.  Maybe 5646 already says this.  In any event, I don't oppose 
your requests as long as that point is clear to all.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­