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

Michael Everson everson at
Wed Oct 20 20:13:19 CEST 2010

On 20 Oct 2010, at 17:22, John Cowan wrote:

> 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.

I agree completely with John here. In Korea, Peter and I spoke about Wolof, and he made a good case, because Wolof has actual script issues. I don't believe that this is true of any variety of Quechua.

>> (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.

Nor do I. And if an implementation has leaks because of assumptions it made about other, multi-script languages, that does not mean that lots of new subtags should be added in order to plug the leaks of the implementation. It's the implementation which ought to be fixed.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list