suppress-script values for fil, mi, pes, prs, qu members
doug at ewellic.org
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 | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages