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

Doug Ewell doug at
Wed Oct 20 23:02:30 CEST 2010

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

> Processing 50+ requests is not an enjoyable exercise for anybody who 
> has to do the processing. Not for Doug, not for me, not for Amanda.

Speaking only for myself, I don't care if my piece entails a lot of work 
if it (a) benefits the language tagging community and (b) helps keep the 
ongoing development of the Registry on an orderly course.

The kind of subtag requests that annoy me are things like:

* Requests whose purpose is to "test the system" or to resolve a 
philosophical dispute that has already been debated (like bringing a 
case before a high court in order to establish legal precedent).

* Requests that attempt to make a personal point, or to achieve (or 
deny) a seal of approval for a given language or variant.

* Requests for subtags that serve no language-tagging purpose, but are 
intended to make the BCP 47 Registry a better input source for unrelated 
or semi-related standards.

My understanding was that Peter's requests were directly related to 
language tagging needs: written content tagged "qub" should be 
considered equivalent to "qub-Latn" because Huallaga Huánuco Quechua is 
written overwhelmingly in the Latin script.  If, instead, the goal is to 
provide a hint to some other mechanism or protocol or standard, to help 
in choosing a keyboard layout or font set, then this may fall into 
category 3 above.

As a reminder, during LTRU II I proposed adding the ISO 639-3 "type" 
category (living, extinct, ancient, etc.) as a field in the Registry, 
but this was rejected on the basis that this meta-information was not 
relevant for language tagging.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list