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

Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Oct 20 20:43:54 CEST 2010

From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug at] 

> 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.

Well, the door has always been open for people to propose additional s-s info. I'm not really worried that someone will come along proposing thousands of additions because there are just too many languages for which it's too hard to find info. I could imagine this leading over some time to dozens or maybe one- or two-hundred more cases that are assumed to be clear mono-script cases. And I'm not  concerned that would be onerous were it to happen.

Of course, we could also decide up front that we want to take some entirely different approach. That's why I opened general discussion rather than going directly to submitting forms.

> 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.  

Whether it says it explicitly or not, I assume every individual request is to be considered on its own merits.

> In any event, I don't oppose your requests as long as that point is clear to all.

Thanks for clarifying that.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list