suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members
petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Oct 20 22:13:33 CEST 2010
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
>> If there isn't a script issue, then indeed language tags without script subtags should be completely reasonable.
> No. Completely redundant and unnecessary.
I think you misread what I wrote and, in fact mean that language tags _with_ script subtags are, in these cases, completely redundant and unnecessary. I agree. And the reason why I raise the question of adding s-s is precisely to make that clear in the registry.
>> But how is an implementer to know when that's the case? Your second sentence, "Unless...", doesn't make sense to me. Let me restate without as many negatives: "If a language uses only one script, there is no point in adding s-s information to ISO 639-2/-3 languages; its purpose is to tell you the default script when there is one." The logical argument you're trying to make completely escapes me.
> He means for a language with more than one script, s-s defines a default.
No, Michael, that's exactly the opposite of the intent of s-s: s-s tells you that there is only one script that's commonly used for that language. That's why (e.g.) English has a s-s field but (e.g.) Azeri does not (and why I proposed that Wolof should not).
> "It seems to me", then, that you are asking us to add 6,000 s-s tags,
See my response to Doug: I most definitely am not asking to have s-s fields added to 6000 subtag records.
>> And qu-PE or qu-Latn-PE are valid but would not match; and the same is also true for quz-PE and quz-Latn-PE: pre-4646 habits of not using script subtags have persisted beyond publication of 4646.
> So, you're saying that everyone should be using script subtags?
No, I'm agreeing with you: that in such cases script subtags are redundant and unnecessary -- but only so if people know that the script can be implicitly assumed. That's exactly what the s-s field provides: that implicit info.
>> Otherwise, perhaps we should be freezing s-s fields and recommending that tags _always_ include script subtags except for the grandfathered cases for which we have s-s fields.
> You'd better make this case to the LTRU. I don't think it's the general consensus view.
I'm not proposing that. John is raising a case against what I propose, and I'm suggesting that this may be an appropriate alternative if we were to go with him in deciding against adding s-s fields.
More information about the Ietf-languages